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

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



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 19th, 2005, 01:17 PM   #41
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,351
Likes (Received): 337

To increase usage of Merseyrail, some of the suburban areas need to be built up more. Coming in and out of Liverpool on various occasions, I've noticed that there are quite a few Merseyrail stations placed virtually in the middle of nothing. All there would be nearby is the odd industrial warehouse and the odd shop or petrol station.
The nearest housing estate is often several hundreds of metres away!
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old July 19th, 2005, 01:20 PM   #42
Scarecrow
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
 
Scarecrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Outside Society
Posts: 8,476
Likes (Received): 871

You're thinking of Hall Road and Bank Hall aren't you Accy?
__________________
SSC IS FULL OF BAD WOOLS.
Scarecrow no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 01:34 PM   #43
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,351
Likes (Received): 337

Sorry, my Merseyrail knowledge is crap. Cant put station names to locations. The ones I'm on about we're heading out towards Bootle/Aintree/Maghull. Also one or two heading towards Otterspool.
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 01:46 PM   #44
Blabbernsmoke
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Beside the lake, Beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing, In the Breeze
Posts: 2,599
Likes (Received): 1

Every time I have used the Merseyrail network I have been impressed. I used to take the underground over to the Wirral on a daily basis, and sometimes took the train from Central out to north Liverpool. The stations I used tended to be quite tidy and smart (-i'm going back 4-5 years, so maybe they had been recently refurbished.)

I don't see why this system, with some improvements, wouldn't be better utilised. Londoners cram themselves into their underground/rail system. Why shouldn't scousers. It is basically a good system that could do with some aesthetic improvements- and some small extensions to make it tie in with PSDA, Kings Dock and LJLA.- The rest is already there!

It is a superb system. One can travel from the city centre to the beaches on the Wirral- all over Liverpool- to Chester. It is a very extensive system- it is a gem that should be rejuvenated.

A good start to make people use this under appreciated system would be to remove subsidies to the buses. Really, does Liverpool need or deserve trams? When there is an underground rail system that serves a wide area (including the Wirral and beyond) as well as buses, ferries, etc. Do we need trams?

Go to the Merseytravel website and look how many stations there are. The network covers most of the city already- it already does more than trams could ever do. So lets build on what we have.
Blabbernsmoke no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 01:53 PM   #45
Toadboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Liverpool, in the North of England but not of it
Posts: 10,613
Likes (Received): 892

I use it when possible, it's a great if limited system.

One issue I do have is when I started to use it they had 4 and 8 carriage trains, now it's 3 and 6 - mainly 3 it seems. I actually the management and apparentlack of willingness to look after paying passengers has kept people off the system.
__________________
Duh! Knows
Toadboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 01:55 PM   #46
pjmulholland
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke
The network covers most of the city already
It doesn't really if you look at it. Merseyrail is mix of old rail lines that were originally built to connect central Liverpool to outlying towns.
The actual main core of the conurbation is quite poorly served - you won't for example see any stations on Queen's Drive, Anfield, Kensington, Smithdown....etc etc etc.

It was a clever move to build the loop and market it as a metro, but there are still shortfalls to it unfortunately.

Last edited by pjmulholland; July 19th, 2005 at 03:38 PM.
pjmulholland no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 01:57 PM   #47
Toadboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Liverpool, in the North of England but not of it
Posts: 10,613
Likes (Received): 892

100,000 per week day, I think the annual figures are 33 million.
__________________
Duh! Knows
Toadboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 01:59 PM   #48
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,351
Likes (Received): 337

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke
Every time I have used the Merseyrail network I have been impressed. I used to take the underground over to the Wirral on a daily basis, and sometimes took the train from Central out to north Liverpool. The stations I used tended to be quite tidy and smart (-i'm going back 4-5 years, so maybe they had been recently refurbished.)

I don't see why this system, with some improvements, wouldn't be better utilised. Londoners cram themselves into their underground/rail system. Why shouldn't scousers. It is basically a good system that could do with some aesthetic improvements- and some small extensions to make it tie in with PSDA, Kings Dock and LJLA.- The rest is already there!

It is a superb system. One can travel from the city centre to the beaches on the Wirral- all over Liverpool- to Chester. It is a very extensive system- it is a gem that should be rejuvenated.

A good start to make people use this under appreciated system would be to remove subsidies to the buses. Really, does Liverpool need or deserve trams? When there is an underground rail system that serves a wide area (including the Wirral and beyond) as well as buses, ferries, etc. Do we need trams?

Go to the Merseytravel website and look how many stations there are. The network covers most of the city already- it already does more than trams could ever do. So lets build on what we have.
Liverpool doesnt need trams, but there are several reasons why it should have them:
1. Most large European cities have a tram network. Its only right that Liverpool should have one too.
2. Many businesses are basing their future on the Merseytram which would enhance Liverpool's economy a lot. To lose Merseytram would lose those businesses, a major blow for the city's economic future.
3. Parking in Liverpool city centre is crap. Anything that helps reduce the number of cars in the centre is good.
4. Merseytram would be great for tourists travelling in from JLA (question: roughly how far is Garston underground station from JLA?)
5. The line would provide a good link from Mount Pleasant to Kings Dock. Its quite a long walk.
6. Losing Merseytram would be another embarressing setback for Liverpool in the committments made for the 2008 Capital of Culture. With the loss of the Cloud, and investors unhappy, there is already a little gossip going around that Liverpool did not deserve the Capital of Culture.
7. Obviously, provides a good link to people who are not connected to Merseyrail.

There are probably loads of other reasons too.
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 02:01 PM   #49
Blabbernsmoke
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Beside the lake, Beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing, In the Breeze
Posts: 2,599
Likes (Received): 1

Would the trams serve all of those places? To what extent could the gaps in the rail network be filled by re-opening old stations and branch lines? How expensive would it be to extend the system- underground to PSDA, Kings Dock, and ground level rail to LJLA (-via Aigburth, Hunts Cross?)

It is still true that the rail network covers more than the trams ever will- would extending the rail network be a cost-effective alternative to the tram system?
Blabbernsmoke no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 02:05 PM   #50
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,351
Likes (Received): 337

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke
How expensive would it be to extend the system- underground to PSDA, Kings Dock, and ground level rail to LJLA (-via Aigburth, Hunts Cross?)
You could probably build another 5 Merseytram lines with the money it would cost to do that...
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 02:07 PM   #51
Blabbernsmoke
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Beside the lake, Beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing, In the Breeze
Posts: 2,599
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accura_Preston
Liverpool doesnt need trams, but there are several reasons why it should have them:
1. Most large European cities have a tram network. Its only right that Liverpool should have one too.
2. Many businesses are basing their future on the Merseytram which would enhance Liverpool's economy a lot. To lose Merseytram would lose those businesses, a major blow for the city's economic future.
3. Parking in Liverpool city centre is crap. Anything that helps reduce the number of cars in the centre is good.
4. Merseytram would be great for tourists travelling in from JLA (question: roughly how far is Garston underground station from JLA?)
5. The line would provide a good link from Mount Pleasant to Kings Dock. Its quite a long walk.
6. Losing Merseytram would be another embarressing setback for Liverpool in the committments made for the 2008 Capital of Culture. With the loss of the Cloud, and investors unhappy, there is already a little gossip going around that Liverpool did not deserve the Capital of Culture.
7. Obviously, provides a good link to people who are not connected to Merseyrail.

There are probably loads of other reasons too.
Thanks Accy. But surely, most major European cities with a tram system don't have an underground system? Couldn't an improved rail network adequately fill the place of the trams- for tourists, businesses, commuters, etc.?

I can understand Leeds wanting trams- all they have is buses- and most of them are crap. I'll have a nose around. If the proposals that I have suggested could be achieved for a reasonable cost then surely this is better than introducing yet another mode of transport. If rail could go to PSDA, Kings Dock (-and be accessible to Albert Dock) and onto LJLA- its daily use would increase massively- especially as many residents enter Kings Dock and Baltic Triangle. Surely the private sector would have a big incentive to put forward funds- Grosvenor certainly would- rail could pull in people from far and wide (by-passing the like of Cheshire Oaks!)
Blabbernsmoke no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 02:15 PM   #52
pjmulholland
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 0

Hasn't Birmingham been talking of building an underground for years now?
I know I'll be spitting blood if they somehow get the funding while we have to make do with less.
pjmulholland no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 02:18 PM   #53
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,351
Likes (Received): 337

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke
Thanks Accy. But surely, most major European cities with a tram system don't have an underground system? Couldn't an improved rail network adequately fill the place of the trams- for tourists, businesses, commuters, etc.?
Many major European cities have different types of rail working side by side.
Remember that despite having some of it underground, Merseyrail isnt much different to any other metropolitan rail network.
Also remember, that trams are far more flexible than heavy rail, even underground heavy rail.
I'm not against the idea of metropolitan rail, but I think trams are much better suited for travelling the relatively shorter distances around the city centre and the inner city suburbs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke
I can understand Leeds wanting trams- all they have is buses- and most of them are crap. I'll have a nose around. If the proposals that I have suggested could be achieved for a reasonable cost then surely this is better than introducing yet another mode of transport. If rail could go to PSDA, Kings Dock (-and be accessible to Albert Dock) and onto LJLA- its daily use would increase massively- especially as many residents enter Kings Dock and Baltic Triangle. Surely the private sector would have a big incentive to put forward funds- Grosvenor certainly would- rail could pull in people from far and wide (by-passing the like of Cheshire Oaks!)
Believe me, I would love an extensive underground network going throught Albert/Kings dock. That would be so cool cos you could have one of those amazing underground stations like at CW. But the funding for that kind of project would be astronomical. It would look even worse when you compare the costs of building it to how feasible it would be. I'm sure it would be popular, but not that popular. To be allow that kind of project to be feasible, I'd say that Liverpool's visitor numbers would have to at least triple, and the population be over at least 5 million.
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 02:21 PM   #54
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,351
Likes (Received): 337

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjmulholland
Hasn't Birmingham been talking of building an underground for years now?
I know I'll be spitting blood if they somehow get the funding while we have to make do with less.
Its an absolute bollocks plan. It doesnt even meet the standards of being a pipe dream. Its just so that the conservative council can divert attention away from expanding the Midland Metro. They dont want to do it because they know that it would be likely to happen, costing them money.
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 02:48 PM   #55
Trammy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 155
Likes (Received): 0

What is the local media saying about this now? Are there any hints of what the PTE is actually planning?
Trammy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 03:35 PM   #56
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,938
Likes (Received): 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accura_Preston
Many major European cities have different types of rail working side by side.
Remember that despite having some of it underground, Merseyrail isnt much different to any other metropolitan rail network.
Give an example of a similar system then. Remember that it must be electric, isolated (that is no other trains sharing the track), and a reasonably frequent service with frequent stops. There's the London Underground, and Newcastle & Glasgow's sytems but where else? Remember, whether it's underground or not has no effect on what type of system it is. It's just a bit harder to call it a 'tube', 'underground' or 'subway' which is why 'metro' is probably the most common term throughout the world. In fact, a large chunk of the London Underground is in fact overground.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accura_Preston
Believe me, I would love an extensive underground network going throught Albert/Kings dock. That would be so cool cos you could have one of those amazing underground stations like at CW. But the funding for that kind of project would be astronomical. It would look even worse when you compare the costs of building it to how feasible it would be. I'm sure it would be popular, but not that popular. To be allow that kind of project to be feasible, I'd say that Liverpool's visitor numbers would have to at least triple, and the population be over at least 5 million.
I don't think tunnelling to the dock wold be feasable as it would be a huge expense for such a short length of tunnel. However, a lot of the expanding potential I've spoken off in post #18 involved using primarilty existing cuttings. I'll mock up a Merseyrail map with what I reckon could be done either tonight or tomorrow.

I agree that trams would provide easier access to the likes of Kings Dock. Maybe the city loop part of the Merseytram could be dovetailed with Merseyrail?
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 03:39 PM   #57
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,351
Likes (Received): 337

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth
Give an example of a similar system then. Remember that it must be electric, isolated (that is no other trains sharing the track), and a reasonably frequent service with frequent stops. There's the London Underground, and Newcastle & Glasgow's sytems but where else? Remember, whether it's underground or not has no effect on what type of system it is. It's just a bit harder to call it a 'tube', 'underground' or 'subway' which is why 'metro' is probably the most common term throughout the world. In fact, a large chunk of the London Underground is in fact overground.
I didnt say it was the same. I said it was not much different. Manchester's heavy rail network is metropolitan. Its just run by many different operators.
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 03:47 PM   #58
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,938
Likes (Received): 60

So what lines or routes do you define as Manchester's heavy rail network and what operators run them?
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 03:52 PM   #59
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,351
Likes (Received): 337

Have you never seen Manchester railway stations? Just like the Merseyrail stations have the Merseytravel logo next to the BR logo, GMR stations have the GMPTE logo next to the BR logo.
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2005, 03:58 PM   #60
Blabbernsmoke
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Beside the lake, Beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing, In the Breeze
Posts: 2,599
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth

I don't think tunnelling to the dock wold be feasable as it would be a huge expense for such a short length of tunnel. However, a lot of the expanding potential I've spoken off in post #18 involved using primarilty existing cuttings. I'll mock up a Merseyrail map with what I reckon could be done either tonight or tomorrow.
Cheers man, that should be interesting.
Blabbernsmoke 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 03:28 AM.


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