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 13th, 2011, 06:52 PM   #61
Joseph_Locke
Engineer
 
Joseph_Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 898
Likes (Received): 308

Quote:
Originally Posted by Romania1 View Post
Who says the line need to be twin track? With proper signalling and timetabling only one track is needed through the tunnel.
But this arrangement doesn't fit with what you are proposing.

Quote:
Or the bottom deck of the tunnel made larger and partioned. Cheaper than boring a new tunnel.
Not with a segmental cast iron lining it isn't, and particularly not with a mezzanine deck structure resting on the invert.

Quote:
This Locke one is still barking.
I really don't understand why you are persisting with this, please stop.
__________________
Railway Engineer for Hire
No job too small. Free quotations. Has own shovel.
Joseph_Locke no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old March 13th, 2011, 07:01 PM   #62
Romania1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 862
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph_Locke View Post
I really don't understand why you are persisting with this, please stop.
I other words you never thought of it. Glasgow and Manchester trains could go via Liverpool. Running HSR through the Pennines to Leeds is dumb.
Romania1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 07:46 PM   #63
Nathan4
Registered User
 
Nathan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Home: Liverpool, Currently in: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 266
Likes (Received): 4

So how would a train go onwards through Liverpool to Glasgow? Be realistic now
Nathan4 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2011, 07:57 PM   #64
ill tonkso
Portsmouths Finest, Maybe
 
ill tonkso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Albans
Posts: 15,387
Likes (Received): 957

Its going to Manchester because of it's location, drive it through Liverpool and then Manchester trains (a bigger commercial market as well might I add) would have to double back on themselves. It would be even more expensive to tunnel it under Liverpool when the trains can run off a spur. Your proposal would add in excess of 30 min to the Manchester trains at least and due to the way the route would cut around the Wirral, not shave off much of that 25 minutes from Manchester on the existing proposal, as well as Liverpool being the smaller commercial market.
ill tonkso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2011, 11:08 PM   #65
Martin S
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,731
Likes (Received): 627

Well here goes my New Years resolution but I think that there are a few issues that need clarifying here. Basically we are talking about four different tunnels:



1. The Wapping Tunnel – Built by the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and therefore one of the oldest rail tunnels in the world. This was built to serve Wapping Goods depot and initially for cable haulage from Edge Hill. It was never, to my knowledge, used for passenger services. Consequently, although it was built for two tracks it is very narrow. As you can see from the photo posted by John, these old fashioned goods vehicles had flat sides as opposed to the curved ‘tumblehome’ of passenger vehicles and there were no passengers to pop their heads out of the windows.



2. The Waterloo / Victoria Tunnel (The Waterloo tunnel is the western stretch from the docks to Byrom Street and the Victoria is the eastern section to Edge Hill). - Again, this was built to serve a goods depot but, in the later nineteenth century, a passenger service was introduced to Riverside Station. The tunnel is, I believe, wider than the Wapping Tunnel but, even so, the passenger vehicles were subjected to a speed restriction (that is because rail vehicles at speed will sway more leading to a wider ‘kinematic envelope’).

3. The Cheshire Lines Railway tunnel – This was built to serve the, now disused, Central High Level Station and was built, unusually, for three passenger tracks (although there were tight clearances between these tracks). Nowadays it is used by the Merseyrail Northern Line and has been reduced to two tracks.

4. The Mersey Railway Birkenhead Park Extension tunnel. This is where Conway Park is located and was built, from the outset, for passenger vehicles. Conway Park station was constructed by opening up the tunnel into a large cutting (the initial proposal was to make this an underground station with an office building on top but the increased cost of underground construction following the Fennel report into the 1988 Kings Cross fire made this too expensive).



There have been proposals to re-use both the Wapping and Waterloo / Victoria tunnels for forming a connection from Liverpool Central to Edge Hill – known as the Edge Hill Spur. The initial proposal was to re-use the Wapping Tunnel via a short connection from the southern end of Central Low Level Station. This would make use of a flyover (since demolished) that would take the route over the main lines out of Edge Hill to join up with the Liverpool and Manchester line and thereby provide a service to Broadgreen and St Helens.

This proposal was replaced by a more expensive scheme to use the Waterloo / Victoria Tunnel which would involve extending the new link tunnels in a loop northwards via a new station to serve the University and then under the Lime Street cutting to link up with the old tunnel somewhere near the Royal Hospital. Not only would this allow the University to be put on the Merseyrail network but also the proposed Pigue Lane business park (Wavertree Technology Park).



Following the problems with Merseytram, a proposal arose to re-examine the Wapping Tunnel scheme although no details have been published.

As both of these schemes would have required opening twin track goods tunnels to passenger operation, some problems are likely to have arisen. The fact that the Waterloo / Victoria tunnel had been previously used by passenger trains would not have automatically guaranteed that it could be re-opened for that purpose as, in the eyes of the Railway Inspectorate, it would be seen as a completely new tunnel requiring to be built to modern standards and probably incorporating an evacuation walkway for passengers in an emergency or for maintenance staff.

One solution to that may be to use slab track, as opposed to ballasted sleeper track, which would reduce track levels and allow greater clearance at the haunches of the arch. However, this would not solve the width problem and so more drastic measures such as replacing the lining with modern concrete segments may be necessary. Alternatively, it might be prudent to build a new parallel single track tunnel and use the existing tunnel for one track only - although that would be a very expensive option.

Work never started on the Edge Hill Spur scheme, due to cost overruns on the earlier Loop and Link schemes, government spending cuts and political opposition, but a junction for it was created as part of the Link Line works, known as Liverpool Central South Junction.



This would be a 'burrowing junction' similar to the one at Hamilton Square, which would allow trains from Edge Hill to run underneath those to Hunts Cross, thereby avoiding conflicting movements and increasing line capacity.

TB Maund in 'Merseyrail Electrics - The Inside Story describes how this junction came to be built in this way.

The Cheshire Lines Railway tunnel into Central High Level and the Mersey Railway tunnel into Central Low Level were built on the same alignment as the CLC had plans to create a cross-town link for freight to Herculaneum Dock. This was very never built but the alignment proved very useful when the Link Line came to be constructed. By then the High Level station had been closed and all that was required was to lower the invert of the CLC tunnel to connect up with the south end of the Mersey Railway tunnel.

A problem arose due to the fact that Merseyrail wished to retain the reversing siding that enabled trains to terminate at Central, as only the Southport trains would go on to Hunts Cross. This would mean three parallel tracks running together in the cutting. This was not practical, as though the CLC tunnel had been built for three tracks, these were at limited clearance and the cutting would have to be narrower than the tunnel to avoid undermining the foundations of the tunnel arch.

The solution was to bore a completely new single track tunnel to take the rail line from Central toward Hunts Cross. This is the curved line shown in the diagram. This new tunnel was given a vertical alignment that would allow it to bridge over the proposed line from Edge Hill before emerging into the old CLC tunnel at a level considerably higher than the incoming line from Hunts Cross.

Ensuring the stability of the old tunnel where the new tunnel joined it was problematic and the solution adopted was to fill a section of the junction tunnel completely with concrete. To save the new tunnel having to be bored through this mass of concrete, the engineer's used a massive polystyrene void former, which was tunnelled through with relative ease.

As part of the works, two short header tunnels were driven to allow the future Edge Hill Spur tunnels to be constructed without a need to form junction tunnels on an operational railway. These were only a few metres long. The project team tried to get the Department of Transport to sanction the construction of the Spur tunnels as far as the Wapping Tunnel using a new tunnelling technique but were told that no money was available.

The construction of header tunnels proved invaluable for the Wirral Line Loop as one that was constructed as part of the Mersey Railway was used to form Mann Island junction. The original intention had been to form a junction for goods traffic to Herculaneum dock but, though land was acquired at the dock site, the tunnels were never built. One header tunnel remains unused (see the top diagram) so maybe some function will be found for it in the future.
Martin S no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2011, 09:43 PM   #66
design_man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,690
Likes (Received): 242

This notion of using tunnels because they are there is quaint but silly. Where there is an economic case and a need, new tunneling is affordable, but a scheme does not become affordable or good value for money just because it can utilise old tunnels.

I would like to see the Merseyrail network enhanced with good rolling stock and, in time, improved frequencies out of peak times. Better bus connections to stations will help. Generally, buses will work well in most of Greater Liverpool given that there isn't the type of pressure on roads that exists in busier city regions, and it's hard to see where the demand would come from to justify substantial additions to the network in the short to medium term.

Modest incremental improvements make sense - new stations on existing lines where population densities justifies it, and it would obviously make sense to try to electrify from Bidston to Wales, but other than that I'm just not interested in these silly fantasy lines that John creates.

He needs to understand that there needs to be passenger demand, and we are not a booming 19th century metropolis anymore. There are fewer people making fewer journeys. We have to be realistic. Old tunnels are unlikely to make a useful contribution, and that is that.
design_man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2011, 10:07 PM   #67
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,468
Likes (Received): 396

Quote:
Originally Posted by design_man View Post
This notion of using tunnels because they are there is quaint but silly. Where there is an economic case and a need, new tunneling is affordable, but a scheme does not become affordable or good value for money just because it can utilise old tunnels.

I would like to see the Merseyrail network enhanced with good rolling stock and, in time, improved frequencies out of peak times. Better bus connections to stations will help. Generally, buses will work well in most of Greater Liverpool given that there isn't the type of pressure on roads that exists in busier city regions, and it's hard to see where the demand would come from to justify substantial additions to the network in the short to medium term.

Modest incremental improvements make sense - new stations on existing lines where population densities justifies it, and it would obviously make sense to try to electrify from Bidston to Wales, but other than that I'm just not interested in these silly fantasy lines that John creates.

He needs to understand that there needs to be passenger demand, and we are not a booming 19th century metropolis anymore. There are fewer people making fewer journeys. We have to be realistic. Old tunnels are unlikely to make a useful contribution, and that is that.
This has to be one of the few times I agree with Liverpolitan. There simply is no economic case for these tunnels to be used any more. The goods yards the Wapping and Waterloo tunnels served are long gone, the transatlantic ferry service that Riverside served is gone, the docks that the LOR no longer require this kind of service, and most importantly, these tunnels take people away from places that they want to go in terms of passenger services.

Liverpool already has an excellent urban rail system. Any extensions should be done in a way that has real benefits to people, not for the sake of reusing infrastructure built for a bygone age. That is why trams should be used to reinforce the inner city areas that are not served by Merseyrail.
Accura4Matalan está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2011, 10:36 PM   #68
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,938
Likes (Received): 61

Quote:
Originally Posted by design_man View Post
Modest incremental improvements make sense - new stations on existing lines where population densities justifies it, and it would obviously make sense to try to electrify from Bidston to Wales, but other than that I'm just not interested in these silly fantasy lines that John creates.
Depends what you consider 'modest'. It's a nightmare just getting a station opened in these parts.

I'd say the big issue for the next few years will be the rolling stock replacement. Getting it right will be important. Certainly, low level boarding will be vital, as well as the stock's ability to accelerate & decellerate quickly, as most of the Merseyrail network has closely-spaced stations. Platform Edge Doors in the underground stations would also allow trains to enter the station quicker, as well as adding safety.

A whole load of new stations are arguably worth considering, such as...

Northern Line

At least one, possibly two stations between Moorfields & Sandhills
At least one, possibly two stations between Liverpool Central & Brunswick
Maghull North Station - Between Maghull & Town Green
Otterspool Station - Between Aigburth & Cressington


Wirral Line

Town Meadow - between Moreton & Meols
Maybe Warren - just before New Brighton. May not be signifant enough demand, but perhaps a Park & Ride facility would make it more realistic


Add to this possible projects, such as a Skelmersdale link, and possibly some of the Borderlands Line and that's a lot of things before we even think about new tunnelling.

It should also be noted though that Merseytravel have insisted on safeguarding the disused tunnels, as they want to at least have the possibility of looking into whether they could be used again at some point in the future.

A few other lose ends regarding Merseyrail that I'd like to see...

- higher frequency, especially on the Northern south of Central. That seems a weak, under-appreciated link, to me

- a more prominent branding of the system, that's distinct from Merseytravel. The 'City Line' ambiguity could also be tackled with this.

- independence from Network Rail, so all aspects of running & maintence come under the one company; Merseyrail. As well as being more efficient, this'll also help establish more consistent branding.

- the underground stations need a refurb

- more entrances/exits to underground stations

- finally introduce some smartcards; Merseytravel have been saying this is imminent for years now
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2011, 10:39 PM   #69
Martin S
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,731
Likes (Received): 627

I agree with both Design Man and Accura that the idea of using old tunnels simply because they are there does not make economic sense and a tram system around the city centre would be a much more effective 'metro' than any extension of Merseyrail.

However, there is a case for re-using at least part of one of the former goods tunnels to provide a link to Edge Hill. That would effectively complete the geographical spread of the Merseyrail network to serve all five of the region's boroughs and to give the region a fully integrated system.

The Edge Hill Spur is no pipe dream, it was a follow on scheme from the Loop and Link scheme of the 1970s, which wasn't started due to financial problems - both local and national - and some political opposition. It remains an aspiration of Merseytravel although a long term one.

Far from declining, rail patronage has increased by about 50% since privatisation and this has been reflected in our area. In fact, the Liverpool Lime Street to Wigan line has one of the worst problems of overcrowding in the country.

Fortunately, the recent decision to electrify the City Line routes from Liverpool to Wigan and Manchester means that the St Helens and Knowsley areas are going to see improvements to their transport system and the opportunity to integrate these lines with the Wirral and Northern Lines in Liverpool city centre would complete the Merseyrail system, at least as far as extending its coverage to all five boroughs of Merseyside. (the plan below shows the geographical extent of the full network):

Martin S no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2011, 10:54 PM   #70
Joe the red
Registered User
 
Joe the red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 3,756
Likes (Received): 4

...deleted
__________________
There is surely nothing worse than washing sieves
With the possible exception of being Garth Crooks

Joe the red no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2011, 11:25 PM   #71
Martin S
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,731
Likes (Received): 627

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth View Post
Depends what you consider 'modest'. It's a nightmare just getting a station opened in these parts.

I'd say the big issue for the next few years will be the rolling stock replacement. Getting it right will be important. Certainly, low level boarding will be vital, as well as the stock's ability to accelerate & decellerate quickly, as most of the Merseyrail network has closely-spaced stations. Platform Edge Doors in the underground stations would also allow trains to enter the station quicker, as well as adding safety.

A whole load of new stations are arguably worth considering, such as...

Northern Line

At least one, possibly two stations between Moorfields & Sandhills
At least one, possibly two stations between Liverpool Central & Brunswick
Maghull North Station - Between Maghull & Town Green
Otterspool Station - Between Aigburth & Cressington


Wirral Line

Town Meadow - between Moreton & Meols
Maybe Warren - just before New Brighton. May not be signifant enough demand, but perhaps a Park & Ride facility would make it more realistic


Add to this possible projects, such as a Skelmersdale link, and possibly some of the Borderlands Line and that's a lot of things before we even think about new tunnelling.

It should also be noted though that Merseytravel have insisted on safeguarding the disused tunnels, as they want to at least have the possibility of looking into whether they could be used again at some point in the future.

A few other lose ends regarding Merseyrail that I'd like to see...

- higher frequency, especially on the Northern south of Central. That seems a weak, under-appreciated link, to me

- a more prominent branding of the system, that's distinct from Merseytravel. The 'City Line' ambiguity could also be tackled with this.

- independence from Network Rail, so all aspects of running & maintence come under the one company; Merseyrail. As well as being more efficient, this'll also help establish more consistent branding.

- the underground stations need a refurb

- more entrances/exits to underground stations

- finally introduce some smartcards; Merseytravel have been saying this is imminent for years now
Gareth,

I think we do get carried away with these plans to re-use tunnels and often they are not the most practical of schemes. However, we need to have some idea of where we are going. Projects such as the Edge Hill Spur are pretty modest when compared to what was achieved in the 1970s and so it should remain as a (hopefully not too) long term aspiration. It makes geographical, political and transport sense and, when wider benefits are considered, economic as well. Constructing two mile long single track tunnels shouldn't be seen as too ambitious for a conurbation as large as ours.

We've had a lot of discussion on the suburban rail vs metro concept. I sit firmly on the fence on this one as I see Merseyrail's future to be an extension of its present i.e. a hybrid S-Bahn type system - a suburban network that acts as a metro in central Liverpool and Birkenhead.

It is good that we are finally seeing the electrification of the remaining commuter lines. However, if we are serious about the region, we need to pay more attention to those areas that missed out on the benefits of the Merseyrail scheme of the 70s and do as much as we can to integrate them into the network. For those areas that are remote from the rail network, trams are likely to be the best solution.

I guess that there are markets for extensions of electrification to Wrexham and Preston but I think we should concentrate on Warrington. Extension from Hunts Cross along the CLC line to Warrington Central would also bring Wigan into the Merseyrail catchment area and it always makes sense in transport terms to terminate a branch at a large centre - as it evens out traffic flows.

This would also do something to address the perceived imbalance between the northern and southern branches of the Northern Line. Apparently, Merseyrail are looking at a London Underground type solution to the overcrowding problem at Central (i.e. increase train frequencies to mop up passengers on the platforms) and that would surely help although we might need a grade separated junction at Allerton.

Apart from the obvious problems at Central, something needs to be done about Moorfields which needs to have its Moorfields entrance reconstructed at some stage to make it more accessible.

Platform Edge Doors are really installed to preserve air conditioning rather than for safety reasons. I can't see them happening on Merseyrail due to the fact that we have quite wide platforms compared to a lot of London Underground tube platforms that are far more crowded.

New stations need to be justified as there is a trade off between the new passengers that they bring to the network and those that they lose due to longer journey times. I agree with a lot of the new stations you have proposed but I can't see that Warren would attract too many passengers given its location on the sand dunes.

One advantage of any greater independence from Network Rail might be that the system can adopt a design code much like the Tyne and Wear Metro. Some of our underground station entrances are pretty unimpressive and need to announce themselves more.

Oh and finally - a smart card ticketing system to make journeys simpler and quicker.
Martin S no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2011, 12:01 AM   #72
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,938
Likes (Received): 61

Yeah, I forgot to add improved access for disabled at as many stations as possible.

Platform Edge Doors are not quite the same as Platform Screen Doors, which you find on systems in hot countries, like Hong Kong; where they do assist with air-conditioning. Platform Edge Doors, on the other hand, are not sealed. Their advantage is to help with safety, certainly with crowding, suicides & people pushing other people onto the track. They also allow the train to fly into the station faster than it would be allowed without the doors in place. Im pretty sure PEDs were considered for Merseyrail underground stations in some sort of official documentation; perhaps the Merseyside RUS.

I understand that new stations add to the journey time. I think for most, I'd wait until we get the new stock, which will hopefully be able to accelerate & decelerate fast, in order to reduce the time it takes to call a station. As for Warren, as I said, perhaps a Park & Ride could come in handy here, although the topography of the area may make it difficult.

As for train services, certainly more services need to serve south of Central. Also, a lot of the problems with Central is that two of the three services terminate there. Assuming no increase in frequency from the north, perhaps the Southport trains could terminate at Central instead, whilst Ormskirk & Krikby trains continue south. Another stupid thing is that, if your going to Sandhills, you may jump on a train for Ormskirk or Kirkby which is waiting for a while. Then a Southport train shows up, stays for 30 seconds and then leaves. Not concentrating, you're still stuck on the other train, even though the Southport one could've got you there sooner.

Another daft set up is Walton & Rice Lane. Two stupidly close stations that split the Central-bound frequency into 4tph each, when it could be one station with 8tph to Central.

Lastly, moving Bidston to the junction where the West Kirby & New Brighton lines diverge would give the new Bidston 8tph to Liverpool rather than 4, and new services to New Brighton (4tph) which would make it a more useful interchange for the Borderlands Line.
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2011, 01:23 AM   #73
Evertonian
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,319
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth View Post
Wirral Line

Town Meadow - between Moreton & Meols
Maybe Warren - just before New Brighton. May not be signifant enough demand, but perhaps a Park & Ride facility would make it more realistic
In live off Warren Drive. Why on earth would a station there be required given that it is one of the richest areas in wallasey and is served by New Brighton and Wallasey Grove Rd!?

I don't get that one at all.

On the Wirral line the overwhelming need is for a return of rapid rail to seacombe/poulton/egremont. The most highest populus area in the Wirral and the one most reliant on public transport.

When I worked at Merseytravel I was told by senior managers that it will never happen, because of the tunnels. It would make the whole house of cards collapse if there was ever rapid rail in Seacombe. It would also not be a good thing for the ferries for obvious reasons.
Evertonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2011, 02:13 AM   #74
Mostly Lurking
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,821
Likes (Received): 0

If you don't like the thread, go elsewhere - you haven't made an on topic post yet. And some of us have known John for years, you have known him ten minutes but seem to think your diagnosis is more valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth View Post
Platform Edge Doors are not quite the same as Platform Screen Doors, which you find on systems in hot countries, like Hong Kong; where they do assist with air-conditioning. Platform Edge Doors, on the other hand, are not sealed. Their advantage is to help with safety, certainly with crowding, suicides & people pushing other people onto the track. They also allow the train to fly into the station faster than it would be allowed without the doors in place. Im pretty sure PEDs were considered for Merseyrail underground stations in some sort of official documentation; perhaps the Merseyside RUS.
I understand what you are saying, but that is not a solution. It is a device to delay long term investment (more stock) by allowing platforms to be more crowded and trains to enter the station marginally quicker which would save at most a minute on an hours journey.

Quote:
As for train services, certainly more services need to serve south of Central. Also, a lot of the problems with Central is that two of the three services terminate there. Assuming no increase in frequency from the north, perhaps the Southport trains could terminate at Central instead, whilst Ormskirk & Krikby trains continue south.
This will never happen with the current infrastructure as there is the single line Hunts Cross section along with the flat crossing at South Parkway.

Quote:
Another stupid thing is that, if your going to Sandhills, you may jump on a train for Ormskirk or Kirkby which is waiting for a while. Then a Southport train shows up, stays for 30 seconds and then leaves. Not concentrating, you're still stuck on the other train, even though the Southport one could've got you there sooner.
Not convinced that is a major problem, and it would only happen with the Ormskirk train anyway, which leaves two minutes after the Southport one during the daytime.

Quote:
Another daft set up is Walton & Rice Lane. Two stupidly close stations that split the Central-bound frequency into 4tph each, when it could be one station with 8tph to Central.
Totally agree - it is a really daft setup.
Mostly Lurking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2011, 02:43 AM   #75
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,938
Likes (Received): 61

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mostly Lurking View Post
This will never happen with the current infrastructure as there is the single line Hunts Cross section along with the flat crossing at South Parkway.
Yeah, that's a pain. Perhaps a turnback facility at one of the statons preceding Hunts Cross ie South Parkway would be a solution short of creating a flyover/under.

Another observation with that junction though is how Merseyrail trains cross over to the north side of the mainline tracks. Could they not be altered slightly so that Merseyrail can terminate at the southern platform and other trains use the other two platforms? That way, there's not crossoever.
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2011, 06:38 PM   #76
Martin S
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,731
Likes (Received): 627

Quote:
Originally Posted by Romania1 View Post
For some inexplicable reason, the city planners do not have developments around the rapid-transit rail stations. Which other cities would clearly do, playing to their assets. Liverpool has a great commuter-rail network, second in the UK, which can be expanded to create an economic growth metro network very quickly, cheaply and easily. Other cities drool at what Liverpool has, yet the city ignores one of its prime assets - one which can greatly assist in projecting the city forward.
I agree with you on that one John. It always amazed me that Moorfields station, which has frequent and direct connections to all but one of the stations on the Merseyrail network has been shoved down a side street and still to a large extent surrounded by dereliction. In fact, back in the nineties, the only new development near the station was a car park!

I would like to see it rebuilt at ground level, with an office building on top, and, if practical, underground links to Dale Street and Tithebarn Street with street entrances such as in the London Underground or Paris Metro.

Central is at last getting Central Village and I expect that to be one of the most popular sites in central Liverpool.
Martin S no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2011, 07:01 PM   #77
Martin S
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,731
Likes (Received): 627

Quote:
Originally Posted by Romania1 View Post
Few people use Merseyrail as a metro in central Liverpool. The network is Commuter-rail. The Wirral Line loop was designed to facilitate commuter-rail. The Loop is impractical to get around the centre. Stations do not have enough entrances around them. One in Leece St could access Central and increase usage. As a result few use the Network to get around local districts. It is to get from the outers to the centre - nothing else.
That's true up to a point. I would never use Merseyrail as a way of getting round central Liverpool - so in that sense it is not a metro. Having said that, up to the age of 18, the only railway journey I made on a regular basis was James Street to Hamilton Square, so the underground was, for me at least, a metro.

The point I am making with this is that the distribution of passengers that the Wirral Line and to a lesser extent the Northern Line allows within central Liverpool removes the need for a metro. People coming in on those lines will be far more likely to be able to walk to their destination than, say, people coming in to Leeds City Station, which is that city's sole central rail station and quite eccentric to the centre of the city.

Of course, the more stations that are opened on radial lines, the more the 'metro effect' comes into play. An important part of the business case for Birkenhead's Conway Park station was the additional journey opportunities arising from the proposed Bidston-Woodchurch electrification, which would not only bring more people into the centre of Birkenhead but the two additional trains on the line into Liverpool would improve connectivity between the two centres. Of course, we are still waiting for that.

There are probably more areas that could benefit from that approach and that is why it would be good to see the reopening of St James Station (or maybe a completely new station to serve Chinatown). Obviously that would need to go hand in hand with a regeneration plan for the area as just building stations does not guarantee prosperity.

Then, if and when the Edge Hill Spur does go ahead and new underground stations were built to serve the University and Royal Hospital (or Catherine Street / Edge Hill if the Wapping alignment were chosen) then the metro effect would probably come into its own.

As an aside, I often wonder if the Glasgow Subway, which is a purely city centre metro system with no branches is used in a similar way to the Merseyrail underground system (i.e. people use it to get from one side of the Clyde to the other) but not to go from station to station without a river crossing).
Martin S no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2011, 07:37 PM   #78
Mostly Lurking
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,821
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin S View Post
I agree with you on that one John. It always amazed me that Moorfields station, which has frequent and direct connections to all but one of the stations on the Merseyrail network.
I'm having a mental block. I can't think of a station that doesn't have a frequent service from Moorfields.
Mostly Lurking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2011, 09:10 PM   #79
Romania1
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 862
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mostly Lurking View Post
I'm having a mental block. I can't think of a station that doesn't have a frequent service from Moorfields.
The only station that does not have a frequent service from Moorfields is Moorfields itself.
Romania1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2011, 12:42 PM   #80
Martin S
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,731
Likes (Received): 627

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mostly Lurking View Post
I'm having a mental block. I can't think of a station that doesn't have a frequent service from Moorfields.
Sorry, I should have said 'frequent and direct connections from all but one of the stations on the Merseyrail network'

Easier now?
Martin S 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 04:19 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