Salford Docks Freight Tunnel

[muddythefish]

The two cities are mutually exclusive. .

Not according to Gideon Osborne.

 

[mwmbwls]

I and a schoolfriend walked through the tunnel from the northern entrance south, towards the docks around 1970. I can't remember exactly how we got in to access the portal, but we both had a healthy disregard for elf n safety or the law relating to trespass at the time.

The open cutting section was, as described in an earlier post, full of rubbish of all sorts discarded by local residents, and it took some time to climb over the mess.

The southern portal had been almost totally blocked by a pile of earth crudely piled up from the outside, but we managed to crawl out via a small gap at the top of the portal like a couple of trapped miners. The southern entrance was closer to the former Manchester Liners office than the posted photo link suggests.

Whilst there must have been some damage to the tunnel and an infilling of the cutting, I have often wondered in there was not an opportunity for a Metrolink connection to be added to take the Eccles extension up to Salford Crescent and thence to the University or further afield, perhaps looping back towards Manchester itself?

A wild fantasy perhaps, but I am curious to know what remains of the tunnel 45 years after my subterranean adventure

If memory serves I believe that the tunnel was exposed during the construction in 2010 of a new branch of Morrisons standing on the line of route and the section under the site was filled in at that time - the brick arch was removed thereby rendering restoration impossible.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=444751&page=3 has pictures.

 

[Wavertreelad]

You haven't disappointed me.

They could have. Look at the Great Eastern which was decades before the canal was built. It could not sail up the canal. Steam ships were well established by the time of the canal's opening. There are a number of points about the canal. First, was why it was built in the first place when a large port is nearby. Myth in Manchester states that the Port of Liverpool overcharged. This was not the case as Liverpool always had spare capacity, so matters were negotiable. If Liverpool overcharged, Manchester organisations could always use Garston which was a separate port and if Garston was bursting at the seams because of Manchester trade, it could build extra docks. Garston had two docks by the start of the canal construction, with consideration for another. The larger Stalbridge Dock was opened in 1907, a few years after the canal opened. Manchester never extensively used Garston. In fact Elders Fyffes moved from Manchester to Garston around 1912 finding the port more convenient than Manchester Docks. The rail companies overcharged, not Liverpool.

I have read some of the legal transcripts into the hearings of the construction of the canal. Some were laughable. One was that Liverpool had little quayside storage of cargos, unlike Lancaster, and charged for lengthy storage, unlike Lancaster. The success of Liverpool was getting cargos off ships and away to the customer ASAP. The customer then could store at their location not at the port. This cleared the sheds and quays quick for the next ship giving a great turnaround and high port throughput. If you cluttered the port by not collecting your cargo then the port charged for it. Liverpool had to, to make the port efficient.

All the canal company had to do was build a railway, not a very expensive to build canal. This requires an act of parliament and of course objections from other rail operators would come in, but I would see no real objections to building their own railway adding competition.

The Rainhill trials were in the late 1820s, 60 years before the construction of the canal started, not 40. In those 60 years technology and industry advanced so quickly, the period was unrivalled to any other time in history.

You mentioned the sailing time up and down the canal and being delayed by tides as well. This was a real economic concern. And also the fact that if one of the locks is out of commission your ship may be held up for days. Indeed this did occur in the early 70s when a ship rammed a lock gate, locking up about 25 ships of all sizes in Manchester for about a week. Some lines never went back again too often.

The canal above Runcorn is now a glorified large barge canal like seen on the Continent. The container "ships" taking containers from Liverpool are motorized barges, like seen on the Continent. A few coaster sized bulk carrying ships make it to Irlam each week.

The biggest obstacles to having largish ships run up the canal are the low bridges and narrow locks. The three locks are relatedly cheaply widened, but raising the bridges is another matter. Hence why the canal will remain a glorified barge canal.

Only the section of canal that the Mersey runs through may be kept. In fact the drainage can be put back to the original river bed which parallels most of its length. The rest of the canal can be filled in above Runcorn and traffic moved to more flexible rail, which is not dependent on tides. Traffic above Runcorn is currently poor and Peel hope it will improve with their Port Salford and Port Warrington. We shall see.

The only way the canal can be used extensively above Runcorn is if Manchester turns back to manufacturing, its historical bedrock, instead of trying to be a commercial city.

So why was this expensive to construct ship canal built when logic dictated it should not be? It was built primarily to make Manchester an important city. Important cities were always ports - and that is still the case today.

Where do I start ?

I am aware of the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester, how it started is probably down to more than one reason. As far as the Canal was concerned I seem to remember reading a very long time ago that it was the merchants of Manchester who wanted, perhaps quite naturally to reduce their costs as well as improve the reliability of the cargo flow to their factories and mills in the area. The same principle that applies now, applied then, that is whenever there is some physical handling of the cargo, it induces an additional cost and risk of damage to the cargo. By bringing the ship closer to the point of use the amount of multiple handling and risk to the cargo is reduced and potentially the transit time. I'm not doubting it was 60 years between the two events, nor that it was an age of fast industrialisation, the point I was eluding too was that prior to the introduction of rail, the only way the merchants could transport their goods was by horse and cart and then in relatively small lots. Rail transport offered a better alternative, but would likely have been unable to provide the necessary volumes to sustain the quantities required in the manufacturing process.

Garston has never been part of the Port of Liverpool, a situation which remains the case even today. Garston's historical route's I believe was serving the local coal industry and hence it's extensive local rail network. Like every port it's fortunes rise and fall with changes to it's trade. I can remember ships in Garston carrying banana's from the Caribbean, wood from Russia and Scandinavia and coal in the 1960's. The bananas left for Preston by the end of the 1960's with the timber and coal departing in the next twenty years. Garston handled containers for a while during this time, but the tidal nature of the port and restrictions on the size of the ship could handle forced the lines to move elsewhere. Liverpool like many of the UK's traditional ports suffered a similar fate, but it was in the container trade earlier than you suggest. It actually converted the Gladstone Graving Dock (Now Gladstone 3) to a container terminal, from where Sealand Service (now part of Maersk) United States Lines (went bust 1980's) and ACL operated from the late 1960's. The opening of Seaforth (1971) came too late for Sealand who moved to Preston, before eventually quitting for Felixstowe, and United States Lines who quit mainline services and replaced them with a feeder. To be fair both these Carriers were American flag and therefore carried large quantities of military supplies to US bases in the south of England and Felixstowe's cheap rates, fast turnarounds and closeness to other key ports such as Rotterdam and Bremerhaven would have been huge influences. Manchester Liners decision to convert initially two of it's fleet to containerships and start services from No 9 Dock in 1968 was a first for the UK shipping industry, but US Lines was the first to develop the concept, which was then followed by Sealand. OCL followed in 1969 with it's service from Tilbury to Australia, with the Far East Trade starting from Southampton in 1972. After then Liverpool's traditional trades were converted to containers and the trade was lost although some lines like ACL remained in the port to this day.

Going back to Liverpool's charging issue, it should be realised that a port cannot function if cargo remains on the quayside or sheds for any length of time. Usually the port authority will grant a number of free days for the cargo to remain in the port after it has been discharged from a ship, or before it is loaded. The actual terms vary between individual ports and carriers as well as the type of cargo the normal time nowadays for general cargo averaging between five and seven calendar days, although on North Atlantic trades this can be less. Bulk cargoes will usually have moor favourable terms for the cargo owner which of course would have been attraction to the merchants of Manchester when importing their ship loads of cotton etc.

As for the canal today, I'd agree above Runcorn the activity is a fraction of what is used to be, and the barge service you mention has been replaced for sometime now by a relatively small 400 teu container ship. Realistically this is about as big the canal can handle, Peel or nobody is going to try and increase the size of the locks even if industry boomed out of Manchester as it would simply be too costly an exercise to carry out. Furthermore, why would you want to? If you enlarge the canal, you need to enlarge the facilities to handle the ship, and the landside infrastructure including the local road and rail networks. Put another way, a 36000 tonne vessel might equate to a container ship of about 3500 teu. Vessels of this size are being phased out of mainline deepsea services to North Europe which is why Liverpool2 is being constructed, begging the question where would your ship operate too and what would it carry?

Indeed, the Ship Canal made Manchester the 3rd busiest port in the UK handling at its peak twice the tonnage of Liverpool and even in its final year it was still handling a third of the total. Hardly a white elephant. It was cheaper to import to Manchester through Hull than nearby Liverpool due to monopolistic practises so they cut out the middleman.

List of cities by population

Tokyo-Port
Jakata-Port
Delhi- No Port- Inland location, nearest port Bombay now Mumbai.
Seoul- No Port - Inland location, nearest port Busan.
Shanghai- Port
Manilla- Port - Cargo mainly feedered to Singapore, Hong Kong or Kaoshiung
Karachi- Port
New York- Port
Sau Paulo- No Port - Port is Santos
Mexico City- No Port- Inland location, nearest port Veracruz or Tampico/Altamira.
Beijing - No Port - Inland destination, nearest port Tianjin
Guangzhou- Port -
Mumbai- Port in different region - see Delhi
Keihanshin- No Port - is a metropolitan area of Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe.
Moscow- No Port - inland location. Nearest Russian port is St Petersburg, but large volumes flow through Baltic and Black Sea Ports as well as Vladivostock
Cairo- No Port (Port Said 4 hours away) or Alexandria
Los Angeles- Port
Kolkata- River Port like Manchester, limited tonnage formerly Calcutta. Today containerised goods move via feeder to Colombo or Singapore. Bulk and conventional cargo still can reach the port.
Bangkok- River Port like Manchester, limited tonnage - Similar to Kolkata, with container traffic routed via Singapore, although a new port further down the river allows larger container ships to berth, but still too small for European services.
Dhaka- No port - Port of Chittagong. Same situation as Kolkata.

So of the 20 largest cities in the world only 8 have integrated ports, 2 have ports some distance away and two are river ports with the same restricted tonnage as Manchester
Your theory that all the greatest cities are ports kind of falls down.

For greater clarity, I have added were necessary how each city is served in today's market.

Will you please give a link that a few docks at the end of a long canal, that can fit in corner of the Port of Liverpool and not be noticed, handled more cargo than Liverpool? BTW, the Tranmere oil terminal is in the Port of Liverpool and the tonnage of oil is rather high. Also throw in Garston Docks which are inside the city of Liverpool. What are the figures on ship movements compared to the estuary ports? I can't find any figures on Google. Manchester Docks were busy during both world wars and in the boom after WW2. Once the economy and trade settled to normal patterns Manchester was not a big player. It was only really suitable for bulk cargo to a single customer. Like Kelloggs. Initially on opening there was fear Salford docks would close as no one would use them. Liverpool lines started to use it and saved the port from being strangled at birth.

Manchester did deal in containers in the late 1960s, which prolonged the inevitable, as did Garston around that time, which also had full electric rail into the docks, as it does now. The two ports were quick to grasp containers, as the first container ship to berth in the UK was only in 1966. Both were ahead of the port of Liverpool, which did deal in containers but not with dedicated container handling facilities. Liverpool was planning a new large container terminal with the world's largest docks gates. It opened in 1971, five years after the first container ship docked in the UK.

The only reason the canal was built to was to project the image of Manchester and give kudos. At no time did the docks at Manchester ever make sense when a massive port was down the road. BTW, many ships could have used the canal but chose not to, not all ships all are 300,000 tons. And containers is not the only cargo carried.

I do not know what the biggest ship that can sail up the canal these days, omitting the lock gate restrictions. I wager a lot larger than 36,000 tons. If the docks were viable (Peel are attempting to build another port at Salford), the three locks would be widened to maximum width and the bridges raised. It is not viable and the canal will function only as a large barge canal above Runcorn. I did read at one time it was proposed the canal was to be abandoned above Runcorn as the cost of maintenance was too great for a few coasters a week.

If Port Salford fails, I see the best use for it as a route for high-speed rail. A very straight and direct route.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You never read what I wrote. There was no monopolistic practices at the Port of Liverpool. It is all Manchester myth. This monopolistic view was an excuse for Manchester to build a port where a port should not have been. It was the rail companies who hyped the transport costs. That is why it made more sense for the canal company to build a cluster of docks at Eastham, with ships having a quick turn around not being 36 miles up a canal, and using its own rail line to Manchester with as many rail freight terminals as it liked all over the Manchester region.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Manchester is not a river port, it was an artificial port. Well was one until it closed down. Many on the list have adjacent ports. You forgot London, Hamburg, San Francisco, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Istanbul, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc, etc. All large commercial important cities. Even Chicago is a port. Most important cities, and especially trading centres in the world are ports. Ports are natural commercial centres by their make up, nature and trade. Manchester tried to be one and failed. The city should concentrate on its core root of which it was excellent at, manufacturing. It was the world's first manufacturing city and should be proud of that and get back to its roots.

Yes - I'd agree Manchester is not a natural port, like Liverpool and many others. London uses London Gateway, Tilbury, and Thamesport and is close enough to be serviced by Felixstowe and Southampton.

Liverpool v Manchester. Twas always thus. And no one's mentioned football yet.

With regards to manufacturing and Manchester, like Liverpool and much of the north suffered terribly in the 1980s thanks to the policies of who-know-who which left its industrial base decimated. I read recently that JCB suppliers and components were 80 per cent British 30 years ago, most of them based in Manchester. It is now down to 30 per cent. I'm sure Manchester would love to get back to its manufacturing roots - the problem is the skills and expertise have been lost.

After our indifferent start this season, let's not bring the football into it, it' bad enough in work where I work with United, City, and Evertonians, and somebody who supports Hull!

It's not just a question of skills, it also about investing and having the right cost base. Sadly many UK companies decided to embrace out sourcing their manufacturing to the then third world to reduce the costs in the late 70's, 80's and 90's. We then had just in time logistics were the manufacturing was timed to fine margins and little stock was retained, then the increase in fuel prices came. Suddenly the weekly service from China took an extra week and your process was delayed, not helped by port congestion . You now add in rising manufacturing costs, quality issues and suppliers being unable to keep up the supply chain and slowly some of that lost industry is being returned. Of course it will never be the same volume as it was, but look at what Germany achieves, and in theory there should be no reason why the UK cannot reach the same sort of level.

Liverpool never tried to compete with Manchester at all. Manchester tried it with Liverpool at every angle. Even after the ship canal was built the port of Liverpool kept expanding with large docks being built: Gladstone, Vittoria, Bidston, the Dingle Oil terminal and the Tranmere oil terminal. GRaving docks were being added. Garston even built a new dock as well. The port is still expanding today.

Skills can be re-learned. Manchester is deceiving itself if it thinks it will be a major commercial city. It will not. HMG favouring Manchester is going against the natural flow, wasting money and time. It is best that young men are working with hydraulics rather than getting fat sitting at desks doing back office work for London companies - cheap labour. Manchester needs to be in charge of its own destiny and not be a puppet of London.

The two cities are mutually exclusive. If Whitehall is taken out of the frame the two cities will find their natural complimenting niches.

Which is exactly what the present Government is trying to achieve with rebalancing the economy and the Northern Powerhouse.

 

[thenorthern]

Can we keep this thread about the tunnel and not about the Manchester and Liverpool rivalry.

 

[UrbanWorld]

Cargo being off loaded at Liverpool Manchester is the same in handling.

It just means the train from Liverpool travels a little further. The container handling facilities the Gladstone graving docks were limited and only temporary until Seaforth Dock came on-line.

Most goods travelled to Manchester by Mersey flats, via the river and canals.

Garston has a limit of 12,000 ton ships. About the same as Manchester had. If industry boomed out of Manchester for bulk cargoes, widening the locks would be dictated by demand. Manchester as a proper port now realistically is dead. It is a glorified wide barge canal.

Manchester is clearly not a natural port and a poor place to put a port. To the east of Manchester are hills that are difficult to cross. Liverpool is a natural deep water port right in the centre of Britain. The only deep water port on that coast. Even Thatcher could not get rid of it.

Germany achieves a high level of manufacturing. The UK (the workshop of the world) can do the same. The present government is giving lip-service about rebalancing the economy. If they wanted to they would have designed HS3 first and made sure it was under construction right now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can we keep this thread about the tunnel and not about the Manchester and Liverpool rivalry.

It is about Manchester's docks and rail. Read the posts.

 

[muddythefish]

I

Germany achieves a high level of manufacturing. The UK (the workshop of the world) can do the same.

It's a long, long time (more than 140 years in fact) since Britain was the workshop of the world. Germany has a manufacturing culture which we have lost over the past 40 years. All our best and brightest young people head for the City, where the big money is. The so-called "rebalancing" of the economy that politicians give lip service to seeking will never happen.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If memory serves I believe that the tunnel was exposed during the construction in 2010 of a new branch of Morrisons standing on the line of route and the section under the site was filled in at that time - the brick arch was removed thereby rendering restoration impossible.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=444751&page=3 has pictures.

In that link you were so kind to submit, the two pictures submitted by cooperman and by SleepyOne are quite revealing.

 

[Wavertreelad]

It just means the train from Liverpool travels a little further. The container handling facilities the Gladstone graving docks were limited and only temporary until Seaforth Dock came on-line.

Most goods travelled to Manchester by Mersey flats, via the river and canals.

Garston has a limit of 12,000 ton ships. About the same as Manchester had. If industry boomed out of Manchester for bulk cargoes, widening the locks would be dictated by demand. Manchester as a proper port now realistically is dead. It is a glorified wide barge canal.

Manchester is clearly not a natural port and a poor place to put a port. To the east of Manchester are hills that are difficult to cross. Liverpool is a natural deep water port right in the centre of Britain. The only deep water port on that coast. Even Thatcher could not get rid of it.

Germany achieves a high level of manufacturing. The UK (the workshop of the world) can do the same. The present government is giving lip-service about rebalancing the economy. If they wanted to they would have designed HS3 first and made sure it was under construction right now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It is about Manchester's docks and rail. Read the posts.

To finish this off,

Agree - the Gladstone terminal was a temporary facility.

Agree - Liner shipping has outgrown the upper reaches of the Canal, the feeder operation to Port Salford and Irlam can serve a useful purpose to some industries alongside and adjacent to the canal where the volume are sufficient, but as an alternative to a natural port, it's not viable because the additional handling costs eat up the distribution costs and also increase the turnaround of the equipment. The canal still has a future for specialised bulk cargoes because of the established industries created alongside.

Liverpool is a natural deep water port (relatively) and potentially has a lot to offer the north of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland if it can attract back the large ships to the Liverpool2 development.

The power house of the north can only be achieved if all the Cities of the north work together, for many, many years local politicians of all parties have argued to build their own little empires, Liverpool being one of the worst offenders. The success of the enterprises like Manchester Airport etc is an example of how the councils working together can achieve long term growth. Central government can only do so much, but the vast amount of work has to be done locally, for the benefit of the population not just party politics. Infrastructure developments will only come as when such needs are identified and can sustain the business case, in the same way the builders of the ship canal justified the cost of construction in the first place.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The power house of the north can only be achieved if all the Cities of the north work together, for many, many years local politicians of all parties have argued to build their own little empires, Liverpool being one of the worst offenders. The success of the enterprises like Manchester Airport etc is an example of how the councils working together can achieve long term growth. Central government can only do so much, but the vast amount of work has to be done locally, for the benefit of the population not just party politics. Infrastructure developments will only come as when such needs are identified and can sustain the business case, in the same way the builders of the ship canal justified the cost of construction in the first place.

Is it not the case that with central Government pulling all the financial strings, with less and less being offered over recent years to local authority bodies in order to address the matter of national debt, then such regionalised aspirations are seen to be thwarted unless a combined regional authority is allowed to go to the financial markets with plans that will see the required finance forthcoming without undue Governmental interference?

The quoted matter of Manchester Airport and its undoubted commercial success is one not seen repeated elsewhere by other regional local authorities and therefore should be viewed as one-off, despite it being a most excellent one-off.

 

[table38]

Couple of scans from an old A-Z showing the Freight Tunnel attached

 

[UrbanWorld]

The Ship canal has a limited future. It will always be poorly used. Largish ships will be few and far between and most probably will be an RN vessel making a flag waving visit to Salford Quays. Companies locating on its banks having a private berth for bulk cargos will be the only expansion, and there will not be a flood of them, unless Manchester turns back to manufacturing, instead of wanting to be a cheap labour back office for London. Small volumes of containers will move up the canal on wide barges. Containers destined only for around around Manchester. Manchester is a dead end because of the Pennine hills behind it. The canal cannot be extended to any other major city. It cannot be branched and run south as the first major conurbation is smallish Stoke about 30 miles away. Apart from limited bulk cargoes it cannot compete with rail from Liverpool. It will remain a white elephant.

Liverpool is a natural deep water port, it is 90 foot deep at low tide between the Pier Head and Birkenhead. Supertankers sail past the Liver Buildings. It is the only deep water port on that coast. The next port north is on the Clyde and south at Mildford Haven. From North America Liverpool is 100 miles shorter than Southampton and cheaper heavy oil can be burnt right up to Liverpool Bay while none can be burnt through the English Channel, making Liverpool an economical port for operators. Sailing in from the south Liverpool is equidistant from Southampton. The port is set to expand significantly with the under construction Liverpool2 container terminal to come on-line at the end of 2015 and large volumes of wood pellet imports from the USA. The port is vital for the economies of the north of England and the Midlands.

So such a vital expanding port would need top class rail connections of course. The port was inundated with rail connections not so long ago. One diesel only line runs into the port and that was only made useful 5 years ago when a short section of curve at Edge Hill junction was reintroduced to stop freight trains having to reverse at Edge Hill when leaving the port. Trackbeds of other lines that once ran into the port still remain. The top managers of the port have lobbied to get HS2 into Liverpool to release rail capacity for the expanding port. Philip Blond, an advisor to Cameron, has said Liverpool should be first on the list for HS2. I doubt the Tories will put Liverpool on HS2 making up all sorts of lame and unfounded excuses and generally ignoring all logic.

It is true the power house of the north can only be achieved if all the northern cities work together. I would not say Liverpool tried to build its own empire. The city is very different to all the others being a large deep water port with links all around the world. To link the cities together the north of England needs an umbrella authority and a transport authority. These look like coming. Transport is the key to linking it all up, needing integration. An example is merging Liverpool and Manchester airports with the link achieved via high-speed rail. Check-in in one airport and leave at the other. John Lennon is easy to expand while Ringway is not. HS3 is essential, and not some half baked concoction with full electrification with a few new tunnels and short lengths of track.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Couple of scans from an old A-Z showing the Freight Tunnel attached

Is this the same one that I am looking at. Geographers A to Z Manchester, with 95 pages of maps, red, white and blue card cover, price 6/- ?

If so, I find it extremely useful, as many now closed railway stations are shown.

 

[snail]

I too thought this thread was about the freight tunnel to Salford (Manchester) Docks. Nothing at all to do with rail links to Liverpool.

For those interested in the history of the Ship Canal there is a good book on the Internet Archive by Sir Bosdin Leech from 1907 (2 volumes vol 1, vol 2). It doesn't paint the Liverpool merchants in a good light.

 

[UrbanWorld]

Is it not the case that with central Government pulling all the financial strings, with less and less being offered over recent years to local authority bodies in order to address the matter of national debt, then such regionalised aspirations are seen to be thwarted unless a combined regional authority is allowed to go to the financial markets with plans that will see the required finance forthcoming without undue Governmental interference?

What you saying is any North of England authority needs finance raising powers. It also needs the same tax raising powers as Scotland. Reclaiming economic rent is the way to painlessly do that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For those interested in the history of the Ship Canal there is a good book on the Internet Archive by Sir Bosdin Leech from 1907 (2 volumes vol 1, vol 2). It doesn't paint the Liverpool merchants in a good light.

Thanks. I have read many books on e canal. It depends on the agenda of the author. Liverpool merchants? Liverpool shipping companies financially backed the building of the canal. They also saved it from being strangled at birth after opening. The problem was the railway companies overcharging. Manchester merchants could have gone to Garston Docks to import cotton. They never. The city of Manchester have made all sorts of excuses to justify its building. The simple matter was the city wanted to make Manchester an important city. It failed. It was bound to fail. It was built for the wrong reasons. The cotton bound for Manchester and other parts of Lancashire was still being imported via Liverpool, after the canal was built and right into the 1970s, as it was cheaper to do so. Mills in north Lancashire tended to import their cotton via Liverpool and use rail.

Manchester Docks were a failure, however a short stretch of the canal has made a linear dock opposite Liverpool in the Mersey estuary up to Runcorn, which is very well used. There was concern at Liverpool that the dredged channel would affect Liverpool Docks. This was dismissed. If they had the knowledge we have today of river movements the canal would not have been built. The dredged channel to Eastham and the canal took water away from Liverpool's south docks requiring more dredging adding expense in maintaining the docks.

 

[thenorthern]

How hard would it be to re-open the tunnel, a Manchester Victoria or Bolton to MediaCityUK train I think would get a fair number of passengers as connections between Salford Quays and Manchester Victoria are quite poor.

 

[mwmbwls]

How hard would it be to re-open the tunnel, a Manchester Victoria or Bolton to MediaCityUK train I think would get a fair number of passengers as connections between Salford Quays and Manchester Victoria are quite poor.

Regarding reinstaing the railway could I refer you to my previous answer

If memory serves I believe that the tunnel was exposed during the construction in 2010 of a new branch of Morrisons standing on the line of route and the section under the site was filled in at that time - the brick arch was removed thereby rendering restoration impossible.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...=444751&page=3 has pictures.

A surface level connection by Metrolink Tram from Victoria via Salford Crescent to Langworthy to Media City via the Salford precinct would be feasible if completed as part of the introduction of Tram Trains to Wigan. this topic recurrs on the SSC thread concerning potential Metrolink extensions from time to time.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1051297

 

[Wavertreelad]

Is it not the case that with central Government pulling all the financial strings, with less and less being offered over recent years to local authority bodies in order to address the matter of national debt, then such regionalised aspirations are seen to be thwarted unless a combined regional authority is allowed to go to the financial markets with plans that will see the required finance forthcoming without undue Governmental interference?

The quoted matter of Manchester Airport and its undoubted commercial success is one not seen repeated elsewhere by other regional local authorities and therefore should be viewed as one-off, despite it being a most excellent one-off.

Of course central Government will always continue pulling the financial strings, but as I understand it the Northern Powerhouse scheme offers financial incentives to the Councils providing they appoint "Boris" type Mayors amongst other things. Whether it is a success only time will tell, but at least it has to be given a try in my opinion, if we can get half as near to the success of Manchester Airport in the next 20 years or so it could drastically change the face of the North of England.

The Ship canal has a limited future. It will always be poorly used. Largish ships will be few and far between and most probably will be an RN vessel making a flag waving visit to Salford Quays. Companies locating on its banks having a private berth for bulk cargos will be the only expansion, and there will not be a flood of them, unless Manchester turns back to manufacturing, instead of wanting to be a cheap labour back office for London. Small volumes of containers will move up the canal on wide barges. Containers destined only for around around Manchester. Manchester is a dead end because of the Pennine hills behind it. The canal cannot be extended to any other major city. It cannot be branched and run south as the first major conurbation is smallish Stoke about 30 miles away. Apart from limited bulk cargoes it cannot compete with rail from Liverpool. It will remain a white elephant.

Liverpool is a natural deep water port, it is 90 foot deep at low tide between the Pier Head and Birkenhead. Supertankers sail past the Liver Buildings. It is the only deep water port on that coast. The next port north is on the Clyde and south at Mildford Haven. From North America Liverpool is 100 miles shorter than Southampton and cheaper heavy oil can be burnt right up to Liverpool Bay while none can be burnt through the English Channel, making Liverpool an economical port for operators. Sailing in from the south Liverpool is equidistant from Southampton. The port is set to expand significantly with the under construction Liverpool2 container terminal to come on-line at the end of 2015 and large volumes of wood pellet imports from the USA. The port is vital for the economies of the north of England and the Midlands.

So such a vital expanding port would need top class rail connections of course. The port was inundated with rail connections not so long ago. One diesel only line runs into the port and that was only made useful 5 years ago when a short section of curve at Edge Hill junction was reintroduced to stop freight trains having to reverse at Edge Hill when leaving the port. Trackbeds of other lines that once ran into the port still remain. The top managers of the port have lobbied to get HS2 into Liverpool to release rail capacity for the expanding port. Philip Blond, an advisor to Cameron, has said Liverpool should be first on the list for HS2. I doubt the Tories will put Liverpool on HS2 making up all sorts of lame and unfounded excuses and generally ignoring all logic.

It is true the power house of the north can only be achieved if all the northern cities work together. I would not say Liverpool tried to build its own empire. The city is very different to all the others being a large deep water port with links all around the world. To link the cities together the north of England needs an umbrella authority and a transport authority. These look like coming. Transport is the key to linking it all up, needing integration. An example is merging Liverpool and Manchester airports with the link achieved via high-speed rail. Check-in in one airport and leave at the other. John Lennon is easy to expand while Ringway is not. HS3 is essential, and not some half baked concoction with full electrification with a few new tunnels and short lengths of track.

I'm going to agree with most of this, except calling the Canal a white elephant and the barges. The Canal forms both important waterway for the North West, as well as barrier, but I would never call it a white elephant. I can't see Peel returning to barges on the canal for the feeder service from Seaforth or Liverpool2 for the simple reason that they found the original barge service could not easily cope with the strong tides of the River Mersey. The current feeder achieves two round trips to Irlam plus a trip to Ireland which means it's far more economic that a barge could ever be and it has sufficient capacity to cater for peaks and troughs in demand.

I drove over the site of the tunnel again today like I have for the last three months and looking at the alignment in relation to Furness House it still amazes me that area can change so drastically in 50 years. It sort of made me decide to try and see if I can find the brochure the Manchester Ship Canal sent me as schoolboy for a project we had to complete. If I remember correctly it had plenty of pictures and history in it and would be fascinating to compare them with the site now. If I find it, I try and post some extracts on this thread.

 

[flixtonman]

Wow! As a very occasional reader of, and contributor to, this site I am awed by your command of the historical evidence about the Manchester Ship Canal and your judgments in the light of that evidence. Please keep it up: it is a fascinating read. Has anyone sought/uploaded on here the opinion of Peel Holdings/Manchester Ship Canal Company [ie whichever is the legal entity presently owning the canal] about their view of the canal's future? Further, the arguments pro and con the justification for building the canal in the first place, and for its continuing existence, must surely have been addressed and analysed somewhere at an academic level [and I am not for a minute questioning the judgments expressed on here already]. I just wonder whether someone may have drawn the threads together in one easily accessible document.

 

[Jamesb1974]

The bulk of it can be filled in leaving the drainage aspects. Any rail over It can be on trestles. It would make an ideal route for HS2/HS3. It is not a leisure canal for sure.

Can you honestly imagine any Government agreeing to that? In this day and age, where every man and his dog trumpets their green credentials from the rooftops and preservation of natural habitat and green spaces is a concern on our crowded island?

If news reports are to be believed, the canal seems to be undergoing some kind of resurgence.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/kelloggs-transport-more-goods-manchester-2635518

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/wine-transportation-and-uk-filling

And even the owner, Peel Ports seems intent on investing.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ef66732-ab49-11e2-ac71-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3NWOBHYsW

“Our vision for the ship canal is much more viable when you link it to Liverpool,” said Mr Carr. “Liverpool has deep water but not land. Manchester has the land but doesn’t have deep water.
“Rather than being a port in its own right, we are developing big logistics hubs along the canal.”
Peel’s Atlantic Gateway development foresees £14bn of investment in the area by 2030, creating 140,000 jobs. The group plans to invest almost £1bn directly into the ship canal. This includes a “trimodal” – water rail and road – logistics system to bring goods in or out by barge via the expanded Seaforth container terminal north of Liverpool and transfer them to road or rail at new or refurbished facilities at the ports at Salford, Warrington and Ellesmere Port.

I don't think it's going to get filled in...:roll:

 

[Wavertreelad]

Can you honestly imagine any Government agreeing to that? In this day and age, where every man and his dog trumpets their green credentials from the rooftops and preservation of natural habitat and green spaces is a concern on our crowded island?

If news reports are to be believed, the canal seems to be undergoing some kind of resurgence.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/kelloggs-transport-more-goods-manchester-2635518

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/wine-transportation-and-uk-filling

And even the owner, Peel Ports seems intent on investing.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ef66732-ab49-11e2-ac71-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3NWOBHYsW



I don't think it's going to get filled in...:roll:

The Canal is here to stay, and as Stephen Carr says Peel has every intention of expanding it's current use and have already committed millions of pounds to refurbishing parts of the canal. Users of the A57 between Peel Green and Irlam, opposite Barton Airfield will see a new road has already been constructed which is I believe designed to relieve traffic in the area when Port Salford opens. Lower down the Canal at Warrington the Action Grange site is to developed as a logistics hub whilst the old Bowaters Papermill site is being cleared and another logistics hub will be developed which could also see the rail links restored.

One of the things that Peel has developed in operating the Port of Liverpool and Manchester Ship Canal is the close contact with potential port users, and that's not just the shipping lines and ship owners that use the port, but it is the logistics providers, and above all industry the owners of the goods that either move or could move via their ports. It should be remembered that the Mersey Ports can handle almost any type of cargo that is likely to be shipped by sea, ie whether it is in a container, roll on/roll off, breakbulk or bulk cargo. The only exceptions that the port cannot handle is refrigerated cargo such as meat and some types of plants, seeds and or nuts, and this is simply because the existing facilities at Seaforth do not have the necessary storage and handling facilities and thus cannot gain the necessary authorisation. I believe these issues are to be rectified when Liverpool2 is commissioned. Peel, through it's subsidiaries such as BG Freight Lines, and Coastal Container Line can also facilitate trade, the success of the BG Freight Lines feeder service from Rotterdam to Seaforth demonstrates this as it now carries containers for virtually every major shipping line, except K-Line, Hanjin, Cosco and Yang Ming although it may only be a matter of time before these lines join the service.

When Liverpool2 opens towards the end of this year it will allow all of these Carriers to call at the Mersey directly which will considerably reduce costs for both importers and exporters alike in the North of England and the Canal will once again will once again be able to contribute to the emerging opportunities.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some readers of this thread may have missed this piece that appeared in the Daily Telegraph recently that provides some financial information on Peels performance which also provides some details of the Liverpool2 project.

I would stress that these results appear to include all the Ports in the Peel portfolio and I am not sure they publish separate information for each port.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ves-with-annual-revenues-up-by-a-quarter.html



"Peel Ports Group, the UK's second-largest ports company, has reported a jump in annual revenues as the business continues work on an investment plan that will allow it to handle some of the world’s biggest cargo ships.


The company, which is behind docks including Liverpool and Glasgow, said revenues rose by 24.3pc to £623.7m and operating profit was 6.9pc higher at £106.4m in the year to March 31.


Over the year the weight of goods the company handled was flat at 65.6m tonnes, capital investment near-doubled to £90.8m and losses after tax narrowed to £6.3m from £17.6m last year.


Another major revenue driver was the group’s marine support services division which provides ship repairs. Revenue in the unit jumped almost 90pc to £221.4m.


During the year privately-owned Peel began work on a £300m scheme to expand its Liverpool2 facility to create the UK’s most central deepwater container terminal.

When the first phase is finished in the latter part of 2015 the port – the first semi-automated container port in Europe – will be able to accommodate 95pc of the world’s container vessels.

The enlarged terminal on the River Mersey will be able to handle so-called “post-Panamax” cargo vessel ships, which can carry up to 13,500 standard “20ft equivalent unit” (TEU) cargo containers.

It will increase the port’s capacity to 1.5m TEU and when the second stage of development is finished in 2019 this will rise to 2.4m TEU.


The company believes the development of Liverpool2 will make it an attractive alternative to current deepwater container ports in the UK, with 35m consumers living within 150 miles of the facility, meaning more central access to Britain’s markets and shorter logistics chains.

Graeme Charnock, chief financial officer, said: "The group again performed well during 2013/14 which has allowed us to report another set of solid results. We’re pleased that Peel Ports has continued to deliver a positive performance while making a huge investment in our future growth.

“While throughput tonnage was broadly the same we experienced some weakness in the petrochemical market. Despite that we have maintained our overall market share of the UK ports market while increasing market share in sectors that we are focused on growing.

"These results give us a solid platform for sustainable growth in future years. Our 10-year plan is focusing on growth at all our ports and will be spearheaded by Liverpool2. Opening the UK’s most centrally located deepwater container terminal will offer importers and exporters a compelling proposition that will enable them to cut costs, cut carbon emissions and save unnecessary road journeys.”