daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > Liverpool Metro Area

Liverpool Metro Area 'Scouse Scrapers for both sides of the Mersey



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 11th, 2011, 10:35 PM   #41
Mostly Lurking
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,821
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.

Mostly Lurking no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old March 12th, 2011, 02:25 PM   #42
eyeam
Registered User
 
eyeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,241
Likes (Received): 36

Why is the increase in speed less for Liverpool than everywhere else?
eyeam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2011, 02:52 PM   #43
Mostly Lurking
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,821
Likes (Received): 0

It has further to travel on existing tracks which are not high speed.
Mostly Lurking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2011, 03:23 PM   #44
Cherguevara
Registered User
 
Cherguevara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,370
Likes (Received): 819

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?
Cherguevara no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old 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.
Romania1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2011, 05:40 PM   #46
Mostly Lurking
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,821
Likes (Received): 0

Assume you mean 1830.

We don't know what the route would be yet.
Mostly Lurking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2011, 07:57 PM   #47
Romania1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 862
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mostly Lurking View Post
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

Last edited by Romania1; March 12th, 2011 at 08:04 PM.
Romania1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2011, 09:52 PM   #48
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,195

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).
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 12:31 AM   #49
Romania1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 862
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
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.
Romania1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 01:07 AM   #50
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,195

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.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 01:20 AM   #51
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,926
Likes (Received): 61

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?
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 03:13 AM   #52
Mostly Lurking
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,821
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.
Mostly Lurking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 05:50 AM   #53
Nathan4
Registered User
 
Nathan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Home: Liverpool, Currently in: Hau'ula Hawaii
Posts: 265
Likes (Received): 4

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.
Nathan4 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old 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.
Romania1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 04:04 PM   #55
Mostly Lurking
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,821
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.
Mostly Lurking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 06:10 PM   #56
Joseph_Locke
Engineer
 
Joseph_Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 883
Likes (Received): 276

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.
Joseph_Locke no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old 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:
  1. Could come up the Wirral on new straight track,
  2. Down the side of Birkenhead Docks
  3. Into the unused Birkenhead dock entrance tunnel.
  4. Then right into Liverpool city centre under the Tunnel road deck to just behind St George's hall.
  5. The lower section of the tunnel could continue under the hall and below Lime St Station to give an underground HSR station.
  6. Access to Merseyrail at Lime St Station.
  7. 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.
Romania1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 06:29 PM   #58
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,926
Likes (Received): 61

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 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 06:32 PM   #59
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,926
Likes (Received): 61

Quote:
Originally Posted by Romania1 View Post
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.
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 06:44 PM   #60
Romania1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 862
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth View Post
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.

Last edited by Romania1; March 13th, 2011 at 06:56 PM.
Romania1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu