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 April 13th, 2006, 01:28 PM   #61
TheMerseyOrange
M.O.
 
TheMerseyOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ruritania
Posts: 389
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by kung_fuzi
This doesn't show any new locks though,does it?
Well the thing is KF, MDHC did do a feasibility study into the enlarging of the river entrances and deepening the northern docks as part of an alternative plan to the in-river terminal. The idea was rejected on the grounds of cost, technical difficulty, unacceptable disruption to existing port operations and the fact that it would add no (critically needed) new land mass for container stacking/cargo handling. That's kind of why I'd like to know why Peel have, according to John at least, changed tack so dramatically. Preferably quite soon because I'm off to West Kirby in a mo.
TheMerseyOrange no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old April 13th, 2006, 01:29 PM   #62
kung_fuzi
Registered User
 
kung_fuzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,870
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjwmoore
No locks, as its the first river front dock, will have dredged channel. The Chester watermark- thats where i work, its a legal requirement to watermark maps put on the net, or OS would be after my head on a plate! They are a little over the top on that kind of thing. As it happens i have coverage at that scale for Liverpool and Manchester as well as Chester

Thanks,didn't think there were to be any new locks.
kung_fuzi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 01:31 PM   #63
kung_fuzi
Registered User
 
kung_fuzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,870
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMerseyOrange
Well the thing is KF, MDHC did do a feasibility study into the enlarging of the river entrances and deepening the northern docks as part of an alternative plan to the in-river terminal. The idea was rejected on the grounds of cost, technical difficulty, unacceptable disruption to existing port operations and the fact that it would add no (critically needed) new land mass for container stacking/cargo handling. That's kind of why I'd like to know why Peel have, according to John at least, changed tack so dramatically. Preferably quite soon because I'm off to West Kirby in a mo.

Thanks M.O.
kung_fuzi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 01:36 PM   #64
TheMerseyOrange
M.O.
 
TheMerseyOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ruritania
Posts: 389
Likes (Received): 0

Oh and seeing as though its been mentioned....Tranmere was also considered as a site for container handling but is being kept as an oil facility thanks to Shell committing to keeping Stanlow in operation until at least 2050.
TheMerseyOrange no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 01:37 PM   #65
scouserdave
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Liverpool 6, Halewood, Cantril Farm, Luton ferfuxake!
Posts: 2,762
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMerseyOrange
Well the thing is KF, MDHC did do a feasibility study into the enlarging of the river entrances and deepening the northern docks as part of an alternative plan to the in-river terminal. The idea was rejected on the grounds of cost, technical difficulty, unacceptable disruption to existing port operations and the fact that it would add no (critically needed) new land mass for container stacking/cargo handling. That's kind of why I'd like to know why Peel have, according to John at least, changed tack so dramatically. Preferably quite soon because I'm off to West Kirby in a mo.
That feasibility study was carried out just a couple of years ago.
What's the score John? Are Peel carrying out their own study or do their conclusions differ from the original?
"Should have gone to Specsavers"
scouserdave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 01:43 PM   #66
TheMerseyOrange
M.O.
 
TheMerseyOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ruritania
Posts: 389
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by scouserdave
That feasibility study was carried out just a couple of years ago.
It certainly was, Dave and the conclusions drawn from it remained as part of MDHC's strategy until at least July 2005.

Last edited by TheMerseyOrange; April 13th, 2006 at 02:11 PM.
TheMerseyOrange no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 02:05 PM   #67
John-MK
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,293
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjwmoore
Tranmere is is not a dry cargo dock, which is why I didnt mention it!
Oil is actually cargo, but I get your drift. One point that stands out is that the 32 foot tides (that is max not the norm) is no hindrance to the port. Not all large ships have to negotiate locks. A point you seem to think that merits spending lots of pubic money on making a fishing village in the sticks the country’s largest port at the expense of existing perfectly adequate ports - Liverpool and Manchester. BTW, not all containers are transported in super large ships. There are quite smaller container ships around, that don’t need huge docks.
John-MK no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 02:15 PM   #68
sjwmoore
sjwmoore
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warrington
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 0

did you see the map i posted on the other thread? You will see that there are comparable sized ports all round the country, why the insistance that Liverpool alone should take the nations trade? Freight will follow economic considerations, so the Anglian ports are booming only because people want to use them- the building of a dual carriageway to Ipswich is hardly evidence of a conspiracy!!!
sjwmoore no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 04:46 PM   #69
John-MK
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,293
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjwmoore
did you see the map i posted on the other thread? You will see that there are comparable sized ports all round the country, why the insistance that Liverpool alone should take the nations trade?
You really don't get this do you? Liverpool was one of the largest ports in the world. Yes, and at one time was the largest. Why build others when capacity was already there. Do you understand? It is simple.

That map is now, not 1980. A 1960s map would say another thing again. Liverpool had an established population, while these fishing villages had none. They had to be expanded to towns taking in people from outside. None of this makes any logical sense at all.

Quote:
Freight will follow economic considerations, so the Anglian ports are booming only because people want to use them- the building of a dual carriageway to Ipswich is hardly evidence of a conspiracy!!!
The building and expansion of rail lines too. The decline of Liverpool was not an accident. It was contrived. The city was raped. From the city with the lovable mop-top to thieving bastards in a few years - if you read the London/Manchester based press of course. To this day none of the Murdoch based press has a decent word to say about Liverpool. Full of strikes they say, yet Liverpool's loss in working hours by strikes was one of the lowest. So, no new industry/commerce came. All by accident of course.

Once Seaforth is expanded, which should have been done with money they spent on an East Anglian fish village 25 years ago, you will find Liverpool’s trade will certainly increase. This does not mean Felixstowes dwindles, as international trade is increasing – and more finish products are coming in via container, rather than importing raw materials to make them ourselves. When trade contracts you may find Felixstowe will drop more than Liverpool, as Liverpool will have the capacity and is nearer to the industrial heartland of the UK.

Amazing, that when sea traffic was expanding in the 1980/90s, one of the largest ports in the world, with adequate facilities declined. All by accident of course. My arse.
John-MK no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 05:37 PM   #70
sjwmoore
sjwmoore
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warrington
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 0

Well, you got your opinion, dosent mean you have a monopoly on historical recollection or the ins and out of international trade....would you like a map showing 1980 figures? (next week)
sjwmoore no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 05:43 PM   #71
John-MK
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,293
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjwmoore
Well, you got your opinion, dosent mean you have a monopoly on historical recollection or the ins and out of international trade....would you like a map showing 1980 figures? (next week)
50, 60, 70, 80 eh.

What you are attempting to say is that Liverpool and the Mersey, was not suitable for container traffic because of tides, etc......opps with a large container terminal there since 1971 (and one in Manchester in 1968 - the first).....justifying spending public money on a new port in the sticks. Doesn't hold water at all.
John-MK no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 05:54 PM   #72
sjwmoore
sjwmoore
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warrington
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 0

I dont think I said Liverpool was in any way unsuitable, just that its turnaround times are bound to be longer due to enclosed docks, I think its your insistence that Felixstowe or anywhere else doing better is part of a conspiracy- I lived in Singapore in the early 70s- look at the port there compared to those days!!! CHANGE. MORE TRADE. Incidentaly, Felixstowe was not so much a new port as an extension of Harwich across the river, which already had the continental links. I understand your bitterness against the media perceptions, and no doubt my comments on pilfering annoyed you, but it was the reality of the time. To love your own city dosent mean you have to rail against all others, and in particular "upstart newcomers" !
sjwmoore no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 06:02 PM   #73
TheMerseyOrange
M.O.
 
TheMerseyOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ruritania
Posts: 389
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjwmoore
Well, you got your opinion, dosent mean you have a monopoly on historical recollection or the ins and out of international trade....
Having now had a proper look through John's posts on this thread and elsewhere it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he doesn't have much of a grasp of facts full stop.

For starters (and I'll pick up on the other stuff after I've had my dinner, promise) just how close to being the world's largest port was Liverpool in 1970, John? Oh and while we're here, some evidence to back up your Peel Holdings claim would still be welcomed.....even after 6 and a half hours of waiting.
TheMerseyOrange no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 06:38 PM   #74
John-MK
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,293
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMerseyOrange
Having now had a proper look through John's posts on this thread and elsewhere it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he doesn't have much of a grasp of facts full stop.

For starters (and I'll pick up on the other stuff after I've had my dinner, promise) just how close to being the world's largest port was Liverpool in 1970, John?
I never said that. Please read them all again.

Quote:
Oh and while we're here, some evidence to back up your Peel Holdings claim would still be welcomed.....even after 6 and a half hours of waiting.
I read it somewhere. In the paper, a journal, web, or whatever. The fact is the largest container ships in the world, not yet sailing, will be in the tidal river.
John-MK no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 06:53 PM   #75
John-MK
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,293
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjwmoore
I dont think I said Liverpool was in any way unsuitable, just that its turnaround times are bound to be longer due to enclosed docks, I think its your insistence that Felixstowe or anywhere else doing better is part of a conspiracy
Doing better? No - time will tell if it does better as Liverpool uprates its facilities. The creation of the port in the first place is the problem. Enclosed docks? You make it sound like it takes 6 hours to get through the locks – wrong port that was Manchester.

Quote:
- I lived in Singapore in the early 70s- look at the port there compared to those days!!! CHANGE. MORE TRADE. Incidentaly, Felixstowe was not so much a new port as an extension of Harwich across the river, which already had the continental links. I understand your bitterness against the media perceptions, and no doubt my comments on pilfering annoyed you, but it was the reality of the time. To love your own city dosent mean you have to rail against all others, and in particular "upstart newcomers" !
My family have worked on that port for 150 years, in many ways. The security is "very" tight, and always has been. So stop talking bollocks because your Dad mislaid his kitbag.

Not against upstart newcomers, it was the deliberate plant of that unnecessary port. The powers that be made sure it would supplant Liverpool - using our money too. Yet again middle class Little Middle England beat the dirty northerners and all the power and wealth tilted to an overcentralised country set in the south.

The Expansion of Felixstowe was during the early 1970s – after the Toxteth riots even Heseltine, when made minister for Merseyside, couldn’t believe they had done such a good job at destroying a whole city with a mixed economy. Seeing the damage done he suggested taking Sandhurst and other government and military installation out of the south. They laughed at him of course.
John-MK no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 11:32 AM   #76
liverpolitan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,416
Likes (Received): 0

http://www.merchantnavyofficers.com/topp.html

Splendid collection of postcards of the Docks, page after page of them. Never seen a collection as interesting as this before.
liverpolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 11:53 AM   #77
Doug Roberts
Registered User
 
Doug Roberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 2,709
Likes (Received): 139

Poli brilliant pics on this site, thanks for the link.
__________________
Doug Roberts

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. Yoda
Doug Roberts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 12:53 PM   #78
Pietari
Just something
 
Pietari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Liverpool / London
Posts: 3,561
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by liverpolitan
http://www.merchantnavyofficers.com/topp.html

Splendid collection of postcards of the Docks, page after page of them. Never seen a collection as interesting as this before.
It sure makes you remember why we had docks.....and why we are still an `International City / Port` of considerable note.
__________________
Business & leisure...
Projected investment of £Bns+
www.liverpoolwaters.co.uk
http://www.wirralwaters.com/
1,000s of maitime companies employ 10s of 1,000s of staff with an annual turnover of £2.5bns+ / 15% of the Merseyside economy. The Super Port of Liverpool is expanding & with 150,000 ship movements a year, the River Mersey is the UK’s 3rd busiest estuary.
http://www.shipais.com/index.php
The Merseyrail network runs 700 services a day, the most intense of any in the UK apart from London Underground.
http://visitliverpool.com/
Pietari no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 04:54 PM   #79
kung_fuzi
Registered User
 
kung_fuzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,870
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by liverpolitan
http://www.merchantnavyofficers.com/topp.html

Splendid collection of postcards of the Docks, page after page of them. Never seen a collection as interesting as this before.

Poli,absolutely fascinating set of picture cards.
Makes you realise what a tragedy it was to lose the Custom House.
I'm sure in one of the pictures you can see the old New Brighton Tower.
kung_fuzi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 06:12 PM   #80
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

Poli,

Superb website!!!

It's amazing how many grand and interesting buildings have disappeared from Liverpool's landscape.

The Customs House looks like something from Rome- what a tragic loss! At the expense of sounding like a heritage freak, I'd like to see it re-built, using identical materials to the original. This has been done in Warsaw's old town, which was also destroyed during the war- it has been replaced and is identical to the original town- literally. -And is now a WHS in recognition of this.

What does everybody think? Liverpool is entitled to this. Mind you, I'm not sure what is in the present location.

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 02:52 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