Liverpool Railway News and Discussion - Page 3

Mostly Lurking · March 11th, 2011, 10:35 PM

It is indeed planned to connect it to HS1, Heathrow and Birmingham airports (38 minutes from Euston).

There is a summary of the consultation here: http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/site...on-summary.pdf

I have posted the 'headline' map below.

eyeam · March 12th, 2011, 02:25 PM

Why is the increase in speed less for Liverpool than everywhere else?

Mostly Lurking · March 12th, 2011, 02:52 PM

It has further to travel on existing tracks which are not high speed.

Cherguevara · March 12th, 2011, 03:23 PM

It'll be interesting to see how the scheme benefits Liverpool (with a direct city centre link but longer journey times) with Sheffield (no city centre services but faster journey times).

Also I may have the wrong end of the stick but isn't the main reason the Liverpool services are so much slower because they're branching off at Crewe rather than Warrington? Surely there's an argument to be made for a more northerly branch for at least some services?

Romania1 · March 12th, 2011, 05:32 PM

Can't the 1930 Liverpool-Mcr line be used as this is being electrified? Branch off the WCML HSR line and then onto one straight, fast run into Lime Street. Then the non-HSR rail line is short and super straight and fast.

Mostly Lurking · March 12th, 2011, 05:40 PM

Assume you mean 1830.

We don't know what the route would be yet.

Romania1 · March 12th, 2011, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mostly Lurking

Assume you mean 1830.

We don't know what the route would be yet.

Yes 1830.

1 hr 13 min London-Mcr
1 hr 37 min London-Liverpool.
Both cities are equidistant from London. That difference in time is unacceptable.

The 1830 route is straight and fast. It looks ideal and its is being electrified right now. Only the Liverpool-Mcr trains use it. The only bottleneck is the M62 flyover at Queens Drive where it goes from 4 tracks to 2. But by then the trains would have done most of the route very fast. Few points which reduce speed. Signalling can mean the HSR trains get priority

sotonsi · March 12th, 2011, 09:52 PM

While I don't think they've got Liverpool right in prelim plans for the NW branch (having Liverpool leave HS2 at Lichfield, even after the NW line is built - including the first-stop Warrington service), I don't think the times should necessarily be identical - Liverpool is slightly further away and slightly smaller in the area it's the hub of.

Certainly that 24 min that means that Manchester times are 75% of Liverpool times is awful, but 10 minutes that halves the relative difference (so Manchester times are 88% of Liverpool times) seems to me to be a realistic and workable goal.

Having HS2 only serve Manchester via Warrington and then the Eccles line is a non-starter. The line should just about cope with the 1tph from HS2 along it to Liverpool. It's 2-track for almost all of it's length and a pain to 4-track for much of it, it doesn't just carry Liverpool-Manchester services (especially post-electrification, when it will take more trains from north and south on the WCML, rather than just Manchester-North Wales trains).

Romania1 · March 13th, 2011, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotonsi

While I don't think they've got Liverpool right in prelim plans for the NW branch (having Liverpool leave HS2 at Lichfield, even after the NW line is built - including the first-stop Warrington service), I don't think the times should necessarily be identical - Liverpool is slightly further away and slightly smaller in the area it's the hub of.

Liverpool is a major tourist destination and getting bigger. The denand to get to Liverpool will be greater in the future.

sotonsi · March 13th, 2011, 01:07 AM

tourists won't care much about 24 minutes more sat in a train - they care more about the attraction of the destination than whether it takes 1h37, rather than 1h13 to get there. Sure they don't want it to be slow, but less than 2 hours to travel nearly 200 miles isn't slow. All you've argued for is higher frequencies.

Gareth · March 13th, 2011, 01:20 AM

What is interesting though is the insistence of bringing the HS line right into Manchester (and Leeds now, if that maps the latest official thinking). Why is the 'classic' spur good enough for Liverpool but not Whitehall regional HQs?

Mostly Lurking · March 13th, 2011, 03:13 AM

I wouldn't read too much into it - it isn't even planned or part of this consultation.

Having said that, I doubt we will ever see high speed rail built into Liverpool centre - the cost wouldn't justify it. Once it hit Liverpool there is nowhere else for it to go, but there is from Manchester and Leeds.

Nathan4 · March 13th, 2011, 05:50 AM

I think the lines are going to those places more because of their geographical position inland as opposed to Liverpool which is on the coast. Leeds is on the way up to Scotland where they'll want the trains going to Glasgow/Edinburgh anyway.

Romania1 · March 13th, 2011, 10:48 AM

The line can be a through line in Liverpool if they come into Liverpool via the open Wirral and under the Mersey Tunnel which is vacant under the road deck. It was designed to take trams. Only St. George's Hall is between the the Mersey road tunnel portal and Lime St station. The tunnel can extend to under the station and out into the Lime St cutting behind.

Mostly Lurking · March 13th, 2011, 04:04 PM

No it can't.

Even if the deck was not in use for evac points, all new rail tunnels must be single bore.

Joseph_Locke · March 13th, 2011, 06:10 PM

Queensway Tunnel is 13.41 metres in internal diameter. Half this, assuming the road deck is on the diameter, is 6.7 metres. Deducting 0.5 of a metre for the deck construction leaves 6.2 metres. A twin line of railway or tramway with a 0.5 m seperating wall (to comply with standards is (at minumum) 12.5 metres wide, which across the bottom of a tunnel of 6.7 metres radius gives an offset from the tunnel invert of 3 metres, leaving 3.2 metres headroom.

Your proposal doesn't physically fit. What does this have to do with my mental state?

Romania1 · March 13th, 2011, 06:28 PM

Who says the line need to be twin track? With proper signalling and timetabling only one track is needed through the tunnel. HSR2 is not going to be a train every 2 mins. Queesn way wouldjust be the approach to Lime Sts station would would be underground. Or the bottom deck of the tunnel made larger and partioned. Cheaper than boring a new tunnel. The evacuationbays can be moved into new cut outs in the rock. Cables etc can be moved into new ducting, etc. They are not show stoppers.

Above: Liverpool it could use the unused rail deck of the Mersey Tunnel. The bottom of the tunnel was supposed to have trams. The under-river section between the two ventilation towers is big enough to take trams. During construction Birkenhead decided to abandon its trams. So the land sections of the tunnel were not deep enough under the road deck for trams.

It is not a great job to get the trams, or light-rail Merseyrail trains, in the tunnel as most work is done.

A High Speed Rail:

Could come up the Wirral on new straight track,
Down the side of Birkenhead Docks
Into the unused Birkenhead dock entrance tunnel.
Then right into Liverpool city centre under the Tunnel road deck to just behind St George's hall.
The lower section of the tunnel could continue under the hall and below Lime St Station to give an underground HSR station.
Access to Merseyrail at Lime St Station.
Access to other long-haul routes from Lime St upper mainline.

The red box above is where an underground HSR station could be. The HSR line could could continue under Lime St station and emerge in the Lime Street cutting using the disused shuntting tunnel at the side of the cutting to take the train up to ground level, giving a through route on the 1830 Manchester line, and then peel off.

This Locke one is still barking.

Gareth · March 13th, 2011, 06:29 PM

Having been down there, it looks nowhere near big enough to accomodate a two-way high speed rail line. Even a tram route looks a tall order, despite it originally being designed for that purpose; and that's without taking into account the various pipes, equipement and evacuation bays located down there.

Gareth · March 13th, 2011, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romania1

With proper signalling and timetabling only one track is needed through the tunnel.

Which would make Liverpool was a through-route even less beneficial. Even a new tunnel would make more sense and would probably end up not costing much more after all the engineering headaches your idea would cause.

Romania1 · March 13th, 2011, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

Which would make Liverpool was a through-route even less beneficial. Even a new tunnel would make more sense and would probably end up not costing much more after all the engineering headaches your idea would cause.

What engineering headaches? A new tunnel with modern boring machines may be cheaper though.

Tunnels under major eco areas and urban areas are chaper, as no long inquiries or CPOs.

March 13th, 2011, 10:48 AM	#54
Romania1 BANNED Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 862 Likes (Received): 0	The line can be a through line in Liverpool if they come into Liverpool via the open Wirral and under the Mersey Tunnel which is vacant under the road deck. It was designed to take trams. Only St. George's Hall is between the the Mersey road tunnel portal and Lime St station. The tunnel can extend to under the station and out into the Lime St cutting behind. Last edited by Romania1; March 13th, 2011 at 11:56 AM.

March 13th, 2011, 06:10 PM	#56
Joseph_Locke Engineer Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester Posts: 712 Likes (Received): 39	Queensway Tunnel is 13.41 metres in internal diameter. Half this, assuming the road deck is on the diameter, is 6.7 metres. Deducting 0.5 of a metre for the deck construction leaves 6.2 metres. A twin line of railway or tramway with a 0.5 m seperating wall (to comply with standards is (at minumum) 12.5 metres wide, which across the bottom of a tunnel of 6.7 metres radius gives an offset from the tunnel invert of 3 metres, leaving 3.2 metres headroom. Your proposal doesn't physically fit. What does this have to do with my mental state? __________________ Railway Engineer for Hire No job too small. Free quotations. Has own shovel.

March 13th, 2011, 06:28 PM	#57
Romania1 BANNED Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 862 Likes (Received): 0	Who says the line need to be twin track? With proper signalling and timetabling only one track is needed through the tunnel. HSR2 is not going to be a train every 2 mins. Queesn way wouldjust be the approach to Lime Sts station would would be underground. Or the bottom deck of the tunnel made larger and partioned. Cheaper than boring a new tunnel. The evacuationbays can be moved into new cut outs in the rock. Cables etc can be moved into new ducting, etc. They are not show stoppers. Above: Liverpool it could use the unused rail deck of the Mersey Tunnel. The bottom of the tunnel was supposed to have trams. The under-river section between the two ventilation towers is big enough to take trams. During construction Birkenhead decided to abandon its trams. So the land sections of the tunnel were not deep enough under the road deck for trams. It is not a great job to get the trams, or light-rail Merseyrail trains, in the tunnel as most work is done. A High Speed Rail: Could come up the Wirral on new straight track, Down the side of Birkenhead Docks Into the unused Birkenhead dock entrance tunnel. Then right into Liverpool city centre under the Tunnel road deck to just behind St George's hall. The lower section of the tunnel could continue under the hall and below Lime St Station to give an underground HSR station. Access to Merseyrail at Lime St Station. Access to other long-haul routes from Lime St upper mainline. The red box above is where an underground HSR station could be. The HSR line could could continue under Lime St station and emerge in the Lime Street cutting using the disused shuntting tunnel at the side of the cutting to take the train up to ground level, giving a through route on the 1830 Manchester line, and then peel off. This Locke one is still barking. Last edited by Romania1; March 13th, 2011 at 06:42 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

March 11th, 2011, 10:35 PM	#41
Mostly Lurking Registered User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,822 Likes (Received): 0	It is indeed planned to connect it to HS1, Heathrow and Birmingham airports (38 minutes from Euston). There is a summary of the consultation here: http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/site...on-summary.pdf I have posted the 'headline' map below.

March 12th, 2011, 02:25 PM	#42
eyeam Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Liverpool Posts: 1,165 Likes (Received): 4	Why is the increase in speed less for Liverpool than everywhere else?

March 12th, 2011, 02:52 PM	#43
Mostly Lurking Registered User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,822 Likes (Received): 0	It has further to travel on existing tracks which are not high speed.

March 12th, 2011, 03:23 PM	#44
Cherguevara Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,727 Likes (Received): 74	It'll be interesting to see how the scheme benefits Liverpool (with a direct city centre link but longer journey times) with Sheffield (no city centre services but faster journey times). Also I may have the wrong end of the stick but isn't the main reason the Liverpool services are so much slower because they're branching off at Crewe rather than Warrington? Surely there's an argument to be made for a more northerly branch for at least some services?

March 12th, 2011, 05:32 PM	#45
Romania1 BANNED Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 862 Likes (Received): 0	Can't the 1930 Liverpool-Mcr line be used as this is being electrified? Branch off the WCML HSR line and then onto one straight, fast run into Lime Street. Then the non-HSR rail line is short and super straight and fast.

March 12th, 2011, 05:40 PM	#46
Mostly Lurking Registered User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,822 Likes (Received): 0	Assume you mean 1830. We don't know what the route would be yet.

March 12th, 2011, 09:52 PM	#48
sotonsi Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,239	While I don't think they've got Liverpool right in prelim plans for the NW branch (having Liverpool leave HS2 at Lichfield, even after the NW line is built - including the first-stop Warrington service), I don't think the times should necessarily be identical - Liverpool is slightly further away and slightly smaller in the area it's the hub of. Certainly that 24 min that means that Manchester times are 75% of Liverpool times is awful, but 10 minutes that halves the relative difference (so Manchester times are 88% of Liverpool times) seems to me to be a realistic and workable goal. Having HS2 only serve Manchester via Warrington and then the Eccles line is a non-starter. The line should just about cope with the 1tph from HS2 along it to Liverpool. It's 2-track for almost all of it's length and a pain to 4-track for much of it, it doesn't just carry Liverpool-Manchester services (especially post-electrification, when it will take more trains from north and south on the WCML, rather than just Manchester-North Wales trains).

March 13th, 2011, 01:07 AM	#50
sotonsi Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,239	tourists won't care much about 24 minutes more sat in a train - they care more about the attraction of the destination than whether it takes 1h37, rather than 1h13 to get there. Sure they don't want it to be slow, but less than 2 hours to travel nearly 200 miles isn't slow. All you've argued for is higher frequencies.

March 13th, 2011, 01:20 AM	#51
Gareth Keltlandia Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Liverpool Posts: 8,963 Likes (Received): 59	What is interesting though is the insistence of bringing the HS line right into Manchester (and Leeds now, if that maps the latest official thinking). Why is the 'classic' spur good enough for Liverpool but not Whitehall regional HQs?

March 13th, 2011, 03:13 AM	#52
Mostly Lurking Registered User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,822 Likes (Received): 0	I wouldn't read too much into it - it isn't even planned or part of this consultation. Having said that, I doubt we will ever see high speed rail built into Liverpool centre - the cost wouldn't justify it. Once it hit Liverpool there is nowhere else for it to go, but there is from Manchester and Leeds.

March 13th, 2011, 05:50 AM	#53
Nathan4 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Liverpool (Home), Manchester (University) Posts: 246 Likes (Received): 0	I think the lines are going to those places more because of their geographical position inland as opposed to Liverpool which is on the coast. Leeds is on the way up to Scotland where they'll want the trains going to Glasgow/Edinburgh anyway.

March 13th, 2011, 04:04 PM	#55
Mostly Lurking Registered User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,822 Likes (Received): 0	No it can't. Even if the deck was not in use for evac points, all new rail tunnels must be single bore.

March 13th, 2011, 06:29 PM	#58
Gareth Keltlandia Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Liverpool Posts: 8,963 Likes (Received): 59	Having been down there, it looks nowhere near big enough to accomodate a two-way high speed rail line. Even a tram route looks a tall order, despite it originally being designed for that purpose; and that's without taking into account the various pipes, equipement and evacuation bays located down there.