Gareth
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 1,505
Also, I don't see what horse Merseyrail have in this. The station wouldn't be on their lines and there's little likelyhood of it being so in the near future.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Merseyside: New stations planned
- Thread starter Merseysider
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Indeed, if Merseyrail are going to get trains to it the price will shoot up from £10 million.
Wavertreelad
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 731
At this stage I wouldn't worry about the rolling stock to serve the station as much will depend on the services using the Halton Curve which will possibly depend on whether it is electrified. In an ideal world it would be electrified with OHLE to Chester, Ellesmere Port and possibly Wrexham in the longer term. This would allow Merseyrail to operate a service from Lime Street, using either 319's or even 313's at least initially which should be available post 2016. Due to the need for through running I could not see the route being electrified with 3rd rail, and this would then still require dual voltage stock to operate any service from the Halton Curve back towards Liverpool which would seem very unlikely.
If the Halton Curve is not electrified Merseytravel would probably have Northern or whoever gains the franchise, or possibly Arriva Trains Wales to operate a dmu service using 150's and 156's although hopefully not 142's all of which should be available post 2016.
Of course Merseyrail are supposed to be placing an order to replace the 507/508s, so it would be logical for this to reflect any possible extensions to the network.
Well if this station gets built any time soon I would be guessing it will be Northern Rail running the service. I personally think it will be a good few years before there are trains doing a huge loop from Lime Street Low Level to Lime Street High Level. Indeed with a long enough timeline and enough cash a complete loop could be made. Don't think I'll see it in my lifetime, would be nice though.
Halewood South
Member
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 7
Greetings to both yourself and Fernakapan. I feel like "the meat on the bone" I've copied in this part of a quote from yourself because your right, decisions for new infrastructure on the railways must be based on a strong economic case.
I believe that the case has been made for a new station based at this site. The case was not made by the ability of inter-city trains to stop at this site because virgin trains do not want to stop anywhere other than city centre stations. The case was not made by the close proximity to John Lennon Airport because the preferred option is to build a direct link into this airport. The case was however made on economic grounds and greater accessibility for the travelling public. The case was made in consideration as to what benefits the re-installation of the Halton Curve would bring and whether this should include station provisions at Beechwood and Halewood South to increase passenger numbers. There is a lot of speculation on this Forum about what can or cannot be achieved. This is where you are totally right, it can only be based on the information given or information known at the time. The premise of this discussion thread is to consider the 30 new stations on Merseytravel's list. We don't have too long to wait, this list is due to be published in September.
Gareth
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 1,505
That makes more sense, although it all depends on what frequency Halton Curve services can offer. The Welsh RUS [I think] only envisioned 1tph to Chester. I'm guessing anywhere further away would not want to be stopping at every station. I guess if it was 2tph, then it would be no different to most 'City Line' stations.
I'm baffled now. Both yourself and the Halewood Labour Party at least mentioned Inter City trains not being able to stop at South Parkway, now you are saying there is no case for them stopping anywhere outside a city centre. The Labour Party gubbins mentioned proximity to JLA and now you are saying it is irrelevant to this project. Have I massively missed something here?
You appear to have backtracked on many things you said and this Fernakapan person has been giving people abuse for disagreeing with what you originally said.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
One to run in the next Grand National, perhaps ?
Actually you are incorrect, it is reference to Halewood Labour Party not "Halewood South".
Make your mind up!
Since you have appeared on the forum, you have unfortunately not really added anything constructive or relevant to this thread to back up your apparent "professional" knowledge on this matter. I and other members would welcome it.
I think these sites are on the former freight lines I was thinking of, and which have previously been suggested for re-opening as part of the back of the envelop exercise. However the cost of a heavy rail solution appears to have been judged preventative even with the higher end estimate on potential passengers. I do not think services on these outer loops could even be justified with a light-rail/tram solution.
Wavertreelad
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 731
Just for the sake of clarity the following are on the Bootle Branch (freight lines)
Spellow (Walton)
Walton & Anfield
Breck Road (Anfield)
Tuebrook
Stanley
Edge Lane
I'd agree all the station sites are well served for public transport heading into the city centre but not quick cross city access which reopening to passenger operations could bring. The other problem is that the route is presently the only route to the Port of Liverpool which could result in larger volumes of traffic moving by the route.
These stations site are on the North Mersey Branch
Linacre Road (Bootle)
Ford (Bootle / Aintree)
As far as I know the route is intact and a single line route although heavily overgrown remains in place. Reopening the route has been raised by Merseytravel several times in recent years with the aim of incorporating it into the Merseyrail network. Reviving economy activity in this in this part of North Liverpool could be an important political aspect in this process.
Gateacre or Childwall (replacing Hunts Cross as terminal station for Merseyrail) should CLC route be electrified. This route formed the outer loop so reinstatement of the line could be difficult beyond Childwall but possibly not totally impossible allowing connection to
Knotty Ash & Stanley
West Derby
Clubmoor
Walton on the Hill
Headbolt Lane (Kirkby) is long proposed on the Kirkby Wigan route.
Wavertree or Sefton Park both were sites for stations on the Lime Street to Liverpool South Parkway route which physically existed up to the 1960's. Both serve a very dense areas of population which are well served as far as bus services into the city centre and parts of south Liverpool but lack access to other parts of the city and beyond.
So what would the service pattern be: heavy rail Southport to Lime Street, or a light rail/tram service? As far as I recall, there were no specific proposals made other than to re-open the stations on the line, so it did not get past go. The service proposals will have to be defined and that will depend on potential traffic flow analysis but I do not think that was ever done. I think there will probably be insufficient demand to justify the re-opening of these stations.
Last edited:
Wavertreelad
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 731
If the North Mersey line was opened as well it would be possible to operate an alternating heavy rail service from Lime Street to both Southport and Ormskirk and beyond via the Bootle Branch. As far as the potential traffic flow analysis is concerned I would have assumed that when the plans for the new Liverpool FC stadium for Stanley Park were announced and talk of building a station "nearby" on the branch that Merseytravel would have conducted some analysis of potential traffic flows. Obviously, a lot of things have changed since and a new analysis would be necessary before any full proposals were known. I took it from the Merseytravel announcement a few weeks ago in relation to the "30 stations" that the sites had been identified as potentials only and that further work was to be carried to establish costs etc., it is therefore quite possible that the list of 30 stations could be reduced.
Wavertreelad
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 731
It was brought to my attention today that Peellogistics part of the Peel Group had acquired the closed Sonae factory site on Kirkby Industrial Estate which is next door to the existing Potter Group facility.
Peel have renamed the site Knowsley 700 and are looking to develop the site as a logistics hub promoting it as close to close the motorway network M57/M58 and M62, but also is stating the site is close to Knowsley Railfreight Terminal (KRT). As their website shows the site is huge and there is a distinct shortage of modern warehousing in the area which is likely to be needed when Liverpool2 opens and larger ships are able to call at the Mersey terminal.
http://peellogistics.co.uk/sites/knowsley-700/#.U9FXM88nI5s
The curious part of this investment by Peel for me is the reference to the rail connection insofar that presumably the only means of trains from the KRT reaching the WCML is via Wigan which appears to require the locomotive to run around the train to get both in and out of site. I'm not sure where any new Merseyrail station on Headbolt Lane would be situated but any large increase in trains could be an impact on either an extended Merseyrail service along the line the separate Kirkby Wigan service particularly if the frequency was increased. The other interesting aspect is that Peel will likely come under increasing pressure once Liverpool2 opens to reduce the number of HGV's using the road network from the M57/M58 junction to the new terminal, ie Dunningsbridge Road and Church Road. Official estimates are these will rise from the current 350 per hour to 800 per hour in a few years time and this route would be the natural route for HGV's to follow to access to access the new site, hardly helping the reduction.
The Merseyside Transport Plan, which appears to have been recently updated contains the following statement
"The Knowsley Industrial & Business Park in Kirkby is served by its own rail terminal which is operated by Potter Logistics. Unfortunately no freight trains operate from this terminal currently due to loading gauge constraints which is only W6 loading gauge and so limit the potential for it to be used by container trains.
However, Potter Logistics plan to undertake a programme to expand the facilities at its three rail terminals in the UK including Knowsley. This will result in extended rail sidings so that it can handle 750m long freight trains. As part of this work, the loading gauge on the Kirkby to Wigan line is to be upgraded to W9 loading gauge.
Also in April 2013 it was announced by the Merseyside Recycling & Waste Authority that SITA UK were the successful party for their 30 year resource recovery contract. As a result from 2016 it is anticipated that two freight trains per day will be operated on behalf of SITA UK from the rail terminal in Kirkby carrying Solid Recovered Fuel (i.e. waste) from Merseyside to their new Wilton 11 Energy from Waste plant in Teeside which is being developed by Sembcorp Utilities UK in partnership with SITA UK."
http://www.letstravelwise.org/content261_Major-Freight-Terminals-in-Liverpool-City-Region.html
Thus it appears from this document that the Kirkby Wigan is to be upgraded at some point in the relative near future to allow container and longer trains from the KFT site, which could benefit the Peel development. However, any rail route from the site would still involve a lengthy detour via Wigan to get to and from Liverpool2 which just does not add up. The answer could be to run a shuttle service from the Liverpool2/Seaforth railhead running via from the Bootle Branch to Kirkdale and constructing a new connection to the Kirkby line. With the rest of this route then cleared to W9 loading gauge it could increase the business case for the line to electrified all the way through to Wigan with Merseyrail using dual voltage stock on the service perhaps even into a long aspired Skelmersdale station. The other benefit would that that an alternative route from the Port of Liverpool to the WCML would be created, reducing pressure on the Chat Moss route via the Bootle Branch.
Peel have renamed the site Knowsley 700 and are looking to develop the site as a logistics hub promoting it as close to close the motorway network M57/M58 and M62, but also is stating the site is close to Knowsley Railfreight Terminal (KRT). As their website shows the site is huge and there is a distinct shortage of modern warehousing in the area which is likely to be needed when Liverpool2 opens and larger ships are able to call at the Mersey terminal.
http://peellogistics.co.uk/sites/knowsley-700/#.U9FXM88nI5s
The curious part of this investment by Peel for me is the reference to the rail connection insofar that presumably the only means of trains from the KRT reaching the WCML is via Wigan which appears to require the locomotive to run around the train to get both in and out of site. I'm not sure where any new Merseyrail station on Headbolt Lane would be situated but any large increase in trains could be an impact on either an extended Merseyrail service along the line the separate Kirkby Wigan service particularly if the frequency was increased. The other interesting aspect is that Peel will likely come under increasing pressure once Liverpool2 opens to reduce the number of HGV's using the road network from the M57/M58 junction to the new terminal, ie Dunningsbridge Road and Church Road. Official estimates are these will rise from the current 350 per hour to 800 per hour in a few years time and this route would be the natural route for HGV's to follow to access to access the new site, hardly helping the reduction.
The Merseyside Transport Plan, which appears to have been recently updated contains the following statement
"The Knowsley Industrial & Business Park in Kirkby is served by its own rail terminal which is operated by Potter Logistics. Unfortunately no freight trains operate from this terminal currently due to loading gauge constraints which is only W6 loading gauge and so limit the potential for it to be used by container trains.
However, Potter Logistics plan to undertake a programme to expand the facilities at its three rail terminals in the UK including Knowsley. This will result in extended rail sidings so that it can handle 750m long freight trains. As part of this work, the loading gauge on the Kirkby to Wigan line is to be upgraded to W9 loading gauge.
Also in April 2013 it was announced by the Merseyside Recycling & Waste Authority that SITA UK were the successful party for their 30 year resource recovery contract. As a result from 2016 it is anticipated that two freight trains per day will be operated on behalf of SITA UK from the rail terminal in Kirkby carrying Solid Recovered Fuel (i.e. waste) from Merseyside to their new Wilton 11 Energy from Waste plant in Teeside which is being developed by Sembcorp Utilities UK in partnership with SITA UK."
http://www.letstravelwise.org/content261_Major-Freight-Terminals-in-Liverpool-City-Region.html
Thus it appears from this document that the Kirkby Wigan is to be upgraded at some point in the relative near future to allow container and longer trains from the KFT site, which could benefit the Peel development. However, any rail route from the site would still involve a lengthy detour via Wigan to get to and from Liverpool2 which just does not add up. The answer could be to run a shuttle service from the Liverpool2/Seaforth railhead running via from the Bootle Branch to Kirkdale and constructing a new connection to the Kirkby line. With the rest of this route then cleared to W9 loading gauge it could increase the business case for the line to electrified all the way through to Wigan with Merseyrail using dual voltage stock on the service perhaps even into a long aspired Skelmersdale station. The other benefit would that that an alternative route from the Port of Liverpool to the WCML would be created, reducing pressure on the Chat Moss route via the Bootle Branch.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
So they would either have to build a reversing siding along Headbolt lane or install a new curve.
Gauge clearance work would be appreciated, that must be one of the most restricted gauge lines left in the north west.
Gauge clearance work would be appreciated, that must be one of the most restricted gauge lines left in the north west.
Thank you for the additional information which is a positive step in the right direction. However, reading your thoughts - are you thinking that Goods (containers) that arrive at Liverpool Two may go to this new terminal at Knowsley and should go by rail but it will take around about route? If so why do you think that? I have covered this before about Peels proposals regarding their marketing speak for increased rail traffic - they say the right words to get the relevant funds but dont mean there will be increased rail traffic.
As you are aware presently, any container traffic in and out of Liverpool Docks is transported by road - any that requires to go further afield by rail goes either from Ditton or Garston - to get there it goes by road. The same will happen with the new Knowsley Terminal unfortunately. Simply why, because its cheaper. The rail companies will only do "block" trains - so doing one from Seaforth to Ditton / Garston (or Knowsley) is not cost effective in comparison with road transport as things stand. If they were, the trains would be operating now to those terminals or at least enough regular traffic to take it further afield.
Also remember Peel Holdings has put great emphasis on their transport by water facility (i.e. from L2 to ports on the Ship Canal) and then onward transportation by either road or rail - there is nothing to suggest this view has changed although I'm not sure how much Peel Holdings think whether all these or some of schemes actually get of the ground?
Surprising enough, I am, like you and countless others, would love to see all traffic moved by rail and I sincerely hope there will be new rail freight flows in the future because of "L2" but the bottom line "economics" plays a huge part of the day to day world and currently there is not a level playing field between road and rail, where road wins majority of time.
The only way I see a major change in this, is that "Government" (dont matter who is in power) are forced into a political corner about UK transport policies and suddenly they start to favour "rail" in a big way instead of letting market forces as they put it dictate our transportation policies which are in currently in favour of road transport. Personally, sooner or later something has got to give as the roads are not getting any better but I doubt I will see this in my lifetime.
In the meantime, it would be excellent news if the Kirkby line is upgraded and that the rail facility at Knowsley comes back into use too - long over due so fingers cross and see what happens.
Last edited:
Wavertreelad
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 731
Doug - You might be surprised but I actually agree with many of your observations, my "curiosity" was more towards the potential use of the site, which is being marketed as close to a rail head and potentially could be rail connected in it's own right. Let me explain.
Earlier this year I attended a presentation by the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), which comprises both local government and private sector companies involved with Liverpool2 - and the much larger concept of Superport stretching from the Port of Liverpool up the Manchester Ship Canal. I have a suspicion I may have posted the report previously but just in case it can be found at http://www.liverpoollep.org/pdf/superportlowres.pdf
I fully acknowledge the fact that currently there are no block container trains into Seaforth terminal and this is not a situation that is likely to change for the foreseeable future principally because in the majority of cases it is cheaper to distribute by road from Liverpool and the industry has sufficient capacity to cater for the existing and growing tonnage. Since the introduction of deep sea container services in the 1960's and 1970's it was always argued that Liverpool was on the "wrong side" of country to compete particularly in the main Europe - Far East and Asian trades. In those early days the transport cost to Southampton and later Felixstowe was partially subsidised by the shipping lines in the freight rates. The rise in oil prices since, together with restriction on driving hours, taxes etc have all raised these costs, whilst freight rates have plummeted. Typically today an ocean freight rate, Southampton to main Chinese Port can be as low as USD250.00 p/40ft including UK port costs, whilst the haulage cost from the Liverpool /Manchester area can be GBP200.00which might just about might cover the rail cost, leaving the shipping line to pick up the cost of the collection on virtually every container. A container moving in the opposite direction will cost considerably more perhaps USD1500 plus charges and UK haulage of GBP450.00 so the shipping line will try to match an import delivery with an export leg to avoid costs of either returning the empty unit to a depot or port of arrival, but as we import more container loads than we export this is not always possible. Back in 1972 when container ships were introduced to the Far East trade, they were approx. 2500 teu capacity, but have steadily grown so today the smallest in the trade is 10000 teu (post panamax) and the largest 18000 teu, which 22000 teu vessels being "thought about."
Unable to handle any containership larger than 4000 teu (panamax size), the Port of Liverpool concentrated on the North American market and today handles approx. 40% of the whole UK /USA & Canada trade. This market is very "mature" as unlike the Far East and Asian trades there are very few consumer goods shipped which means the distribution is more fragmented and directly to and from manufacturers rather than distribution centres for the retail trade. There are other subtle differences, but the upshot is that majority of North Atlantic traffic suits shipment through the Port of Liverpool, with distribution by road. As no USA east coast port cannot currently handle a fully laden 10000 teu vessel let alone 18000 the dynamics of the trade have hardly changed for almost a decade, but with the Panama Canal being widened to accommodate post panamax vessels (5500 teu is current limit) next year larger vessels from the Far East and China will start to serve the USA East Coast via the Panama Canal, making imperative that Liverpool upgrades and hence Liverpool2.
Until about ten years ago the Port of Liverpool did not encourage feeder operators because they wished to attract direct calls by the shipping lines, but first MSC and then CMA-CGM set up their own feeder services from the Antwerp and Le Havre respectively whilst maintaining their mainline calls at Felixstowe and Southampton respectively. A few years ago the policy changed, and today BG Freight Lines which is wholly owned by Peel operates two or three sailings a week to and from Rotterdam and including calls at Dublin and Belfast, whilst X-press container line operates a shuttle from Southampton to Liverpool. A slot sharing arrangement between CMA-CGM subsidiary Macandrews adds a Greenock and Dublin to Liverpool service and Rotterdam to Liverpool using their four Iberian services from Liverpool. The sheer nature of these services means there is little call for distribution by rail, as much of the traffic is destined for the immediate North West area, as the shipping lines also serve on separate services Immingham, Teesport and Grangemouth although with smaller tonnage.
As far as I know apart from ACL who will continue to use Seaforth anyway despite introducing new larger ships next year, no new deep sea shipping line has committed to using Liverpool2 but I would be surprised if MSC and even Maersk did not commit eventually amongst others. With vessels calling directly from Asia and the Far East the dynamics of the movements through Liverpool could change dramatically depending on the port combinations and thus potentially requiring the introduction of block container trains.
Returning to the Kirkby line and the Knowsley development, the point I was hinting at was that in it's present formation the rail link is not much use to the port development, nor will it aid the potential traffic congestion on Church and Dunningsbridge Road, especially as a slightly smaller site is available but not necessarily for sale on Dunningsbridge Road anyway at the Atlantic Park Estate which could be rail connected to the closed North Mersey Line.
The gauge upgrade to the Kirkby Wigan line appears to be based on the Potter/Sita business rather than the Peel investment which is still to gain planning permission so the actual use of the site is presumably still be finalised. However, as the LEP report points out, there is potential shortage of new quality warehousing particularly in the Liverpool area so my guess would that the site will used to develop some sort of freight village allowing Peel to develop it's Portcentrics in conjunction with major importers and exporters, in the same way that Teesport has done with Asda and others but within the port area. Whilst the road shunt would be involved initially, the costs could be manipulated by Peel to make it a seemless operation. Peels use of the rail head would largely depend on the type of cargo handled at the development and the companies participating but mirroring the Stobbart /Tesco operation at Widnes could be one option.
With the Knowsley site only accessible from the Wigan direction, and with sufficient volume, the business case for electrifying the route would increase, but I think it would be need to be OHLE rather than third rail in order to avoid changing locomotives. However, I don't think running containers from Liverpool2/ Seaforth to Knowsley via Wigan would happen, but if it is physically possible constructing a link between the Bootle Branch and the Kirkby Line at Bankhall/Kirkdale could potentially create two routes to the WCML and thus aid capacity on the Chat Moss route. I have heard on the grapevine, that Peel were looking at reopening the partly covered in Canada Dock branch line to Atlantic Junction at Kirkdale in order to cater for scrap metal cargo moving through Canada and Huskisson Docks that cannot be connected to the existing Alexandra Dock route due to the industrial development between the them. I don't know how far these plans have gone but this would remove a large number of road journeys not only on the Church Road and Dunningsbridge Road corridor, but also around Queens Drive and Millers Bridge area.
I hope this rather lengthy explanation gives an insight to my thinking. I am not suggesting any of this will happen when Liverpool2 first opens as it likely take several years for the volumes to grow assuming the economy continues to recover, but that is separate issue completely.
Thank You Wavertree Lad with your detailed thoughts and explanations. You seem to have a good understanding of how trade and shipping lines operate and pleased that you seem to agree with my thoughts in general about new rail freight traffic - yes it will be sometime in coming, if at all in some cases.
As a small point "MSC" already use Port of Liverpool, their ships are seen entering and departing the port on a regular basis, so may be you are referring to their use of Liverpool2 when it opens. I agree that somehow Maersk will consider "L2" too just by the fact they have a pressence at Stodbarts, Widnes where a considerable amount of their containers go through there. With regards to your "shipping" matters, I dont have enough knowledge to discuss what you have raised so I bow to your greater knowledge.
One thing that has been overlooked with regards to Port Of Liverpool and Peel Holdings, as well as the unused container facilities at Seaforth CT, you have also the rail connection to the Atlantic Terminal Complex were at two warehouses have the potential to use it! Sadly nothing has operated in there for at least 7 years (?) and then just add the rail connection to Gladstone Steel Terminal also, you suddenly realise how underused these facilities are. How about using these facilities before thinking about "L2" expansion is more important may be? Peel Holdings are very good at doing talk the talk but when it comes to actual action with regards to "rail" it is a different matter altogether unfortunately. However, I accept that Peel Holdings on their own are not wholly responsible for under use but they play a major part in it.
As for Canada Dock location and the possible rail connection, I am fully aware the land in question was up for sale last year with emphasis it had a possible rail link - I've seen the document for the tendering procedures for this and if the schedule went to plan, then around about now, the contracts etc should be completed by the interested party / parties. However, I have no idea if the schedule went to plan, so that remains unknown unfortunately.
As for Knowsley, I just hope rail traffic does return their whether it is because of Peel Holdings or not, the location does have potential.
Anyway, if I recall this thread about new proposed stations so may be we should get this back on topic hey? Regardless, thanks for your interesting input and pleased to see we have similar views.
As a small point "MSC" already use Port of Liverpool, their ships are seen entering and departing the port on a regular basis, so may be you are referring to their use of Liverpool2 when it opens. I agree that somehow Maersk will consider "L2" too just by the fact they have a pressence at Stodbarts, Widnes where a considerable amount of their containers go through there. With regards to your "shipping" matters, I dont have enough knowledge to discuss what you have raised so I bow to your greater knowledge.
One thing that has been overlooked with regards to Port Of Liverpool and Peel Holdings, as well as the unused container facilities at Seaforth CT, you have also the rail connection to the Atlantic Terminal Complex were at two warehouses have the potential to use it! Sadly nothing has operated in there for at least 7 years (?) and then just add the rail connection to Gladstone Steel Terminal also, you suddenly realise how underused these facilities are. How about using these facilities before thinking about "L2" expansion is more important may be? Peel Holdings are very good at doing talk the talk but when it comes to actual action with regards to "rail" it is a different matter altogether unfortunately. However, I accept that Peel Holdings on their own are not wholly responsible for under use but they play a major part in it.
As for Canada Dock location and the possible rail connection, I am fully aware the land in question was up for sale last year with emphasis it had a possible rail link - I've seen the document for the tendering procedures for this and if the schedule went to plan, then around about now, the contracts etc should be completed by the interested party / parties. However, I have no idea if the schedule went to plan, so that remains unknown unfortunately.
As for Knowsley, I just hope rail traffic does return their whether it is because of Peel Holdings or not, the location does have potential.
Anyway, if I recall this thread about new proposed stations so may be we should get this back on topic hey? Regardless, thanks for your interesting input and pleased to see we have similar views.
Last edited:
Wavertreelad
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 731
Doug - MSC actually operate two services into Liverpool, one is their weekly feeder service from Antwerp which is operated now with a vessel of about 2000/2500 teu. The second MSC service is part of a joint service (SLCS) to Montreal with Hapag Lloyd and OOCL which uses four vessels of average 3500 teu. In practice this is OOCL Belgium 2800 teu, Ottawa Express 2800 plus two MSC vessels usually of 4300 teu which make them the largest vessels to load in Seaforth although they probably don't load to capacity because of insufficient draft. The Antwerp service links Liverpool to MSC global network and is usually fully laden, with the result that additional vessels are occasionally employed, or if the schedule permits the SLCS vessel is used as this also calls Antwerp on its North European schedule east and westbound.
Maersk & MSC have just signed a 10 year agreement, M2, in the East West trades to share vessels and this could have important implications for the Port of Liverpool.
http://www.mscuk.com/_library/news/MSCPressRelease2M_July2014.pdf
MSC has always had inspirations to operate a direct service from Liverpool to USA East Coast Ports and for a short time years ago purchased slots from ACL, however when MSC introduced their own feeder service the agreement was cancelled. Today MSC has two main services to USA East and Gulf Coasts using vessels of up to 8000 teu which operate with CMA-CGM who will be forced to quit under the M2 agreement. Maersk currently only operates one service to the USA using USA flagged vessels but until recently also took slots on a service operated on a service by MOL, APL and Hyundai but their recent agreement to extend their agreement with Hapag, OOCL and NYK in G6 to the Atlantic and Pacific trades has resulted in Maersk loosing it's slots on the service. The M2 agreement needs to be approved by regulatory in the countries served before it can start operations so it will be a few months before the changes start to happen, but it is clear that there will be changes to these global operations and this in part makes it difficult to determine likely volumes when Liverpool2 is opened in the latter part of 2015. However, I do know that the late Mærsk McKinney-Møller the late boss of AP Moller owners of Maersk visited the Port of Liverpool a few years ago prior to the plans for Liverpool2 being announced and was very interested in using the port, until he was shown the entrance to Seaforth through Gladstone Locks and the knuckle leading into Seaforth. However, subsequently moved their entire UK operation to the 13th floor of the Plaza in Liverpool which has an outstanding view of the Liverpool2 development.
In the meantime, Maersk, Hamburg Sud both have started using the BG Freight line feeder service from Rotterdam, but only for specific traffic flows so for the moment the Port of Liverpool does not appear on their schedules. Evergreen who have been using the BG service for a while are about to start operating a dedicated service between Liverpool and Rotterdam, initially partnered by BG.
As far as the underused rail facility at Seaforth is concerned, I believe there are on going discussions with operators about restoring regular services to the facility but as I have tried to show the markets in which the Port currently dominates do not lend themselves to rail distribution. Furthermore, Peels primary aim will be try and capture local traffic so build up volume for Liverpool2, a policy which encouraged Typhoo at Moreton, B&M Retail at Speke, Tesco/Coop at Urmston at least to use the port. It should also be mentioned that when using the feeder service there is an additional cost of about USD200.00 per teu which has to be offset against the domestic distribution cost, so it is simply not economical to use Liverpool for many locations south or east of the junction between M6 and M1 which is about the limit of the Port's catchment area. Beyond this point it is usually cheaper to route directly via Southampton, Felixstowe or London Gateway, or Tilbury but as you move north towards the M62 corridor the advantage drops away in financial terms using a direct service.
As far as the Gladstone Steel Terminal is concerned, I suspect there has been subtle change in the way this works as whilst it is a bulk terminal the imported steel coil is generally delivered to specific coil size and spec with a wide range of delivery points most of which I suspect are not rail connected. As for other types of steel handled by the facility I'm not sure, but perhaps the reopening of the Halton Curve and a route south avoiding the WCML could be used if not for steel but for aluminium as I believe most of these sites are rail connected.
Atlantic Park at the moment has no rail connection although I believe it did have at one time but from what I seen of the site there no signs remaining, and the only way of restoring it would be for a level crossing across the busy Bridle Road to the North Mersey line which at the moment is closed. This line of course runs adjacent to the old Liverpool Containerbase which closed in 1985 and which is now called Trinity Park. The site now holds a Ford dealership and some warehousing and container storage activities but is only about 2.8 ha compared to 19 ha of Atlantic Park so probably has a more limited potential. Both sites are also privately owned.
As far as the Canada Dock proposal is concerned, I've not heard anything either so all we can do is wait and see, but going back to topic and Merseytravel's announcement about new stations etc it is clear than any reopening of freight lines and extensions of the existing Merseyrail network could have important implications for the future of rail developments associated to the Port of Liverpool. Perhaps there is a need for a thread on it's own?
In the meantime, I have added a shot of the piling work being carried out for Liverpool2 which also shows work behind the tanks to the knuckle into Seaforth Dock which is presently been widened to allow the new ACL ships to safely enter and leave the dock. The second shot is a general view of container terminal with OOCL Belgium alongside. The pictures were taken in June this year from a vantage point not available to the public.
Attachments
Great stuff. I have a soft spot for OOCL. When my youngest brother graduated from Liverpool Uni the guest speaker was Tung Chee-Chen who is one of the Directors, I think his dad started the company. His father wouldn't just give him everything on a plate so Tung Chee-Chen got himself to Liverpool at a very young age and financed himself with crap jobs to get in to Uni here. I visited Hong Kong and made a point of looking out for OOCL's huge ships which were sailing past the beaches at Repulse Bay, Stanley etc.
Further to that his family is from Ningbo where a very close friend of mine lived for a number of years.
Further to that his family is from Ningbo where a very close friend of mine lived for a number of years.
Last edited:
Just to clarify I am referring to the "Atlantic Terminal Complex" not "Atlantic Park" they are totally different sites. The former IS rail connected, was purpose built for the Terminal, runs along side the old Regent Road and opposite the Power Station at Gladstone Dock. I do have images of trains on the lines, delivering "Paper Rolls" which were previously delivered by rail to Potters at Knowsley!! Atlantic Park I have not mentioned and I doubt it would ever get a rail connection especially from the almost disused North Mersey Line.
There is a regular, infact daily updates and images on the "Ship AIS Forum" taken from New Brighton by Wally and I look at them everyday. Sadly the link to the thread is not available as it is a members only forum. Regardless the work has been slow but currently there is about 70 piles in place at various degree of heights but it IS progressing never the less.
Last edited:
Wavertreelad
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 731
OOCL has old connections to the Port of Liverpool as it purchased the North Atlantic trades of Furness Withy Shipping which had operated a service from Liverpool and Manchester to the USA East Coast as Furness Warren Line up to the early 1970's. The Furness Group also included Manchester Liners who operated the first container service from Manchester to Montreal in the 1960's. Their ships soon became too big for the Manchester Ship Canal and the service transferred to Seaforth before eventually operating a joint service with CP Ships before the service was transferred to Tilbury. OOCL then purchased Dart Container Line and formed The St Lawrence Container Service (SLCS) with CP Ships. Cast Line had tried operating a conbulker service between Liverpool and Montreal during parts of the 1970's and 1980s but eventually went bust, only to return with new shareholders and a pure container service linking Liverpool Montreal and Antwerp. This new operation was acquired by CP Ships and the service absorbed into a third SLCS service. CP Ships was subsequently acquired by Hapag Lloyd and with OOCL and MSC they still operate the SLCS service started in 1981 by OOCL. The remaining interests of the Furness Withy empire were split with Latin America going to Hamburg Sud (owned by the Oetker group best known for the pizzas etc!) and the Mediterranean trades to Ellerman owned by the Barclay Brothers, owners of Littlewoods. A management buyout under Cunard Ellerman lasted until it was resold to Andrew Weir which in turn was purchased by CMA-CGM where the services are operated under the Macandrews banner.
Many thanks for the info mate, very interesting.
Wavertreelad
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 731
Totally agree Atlantic Terminal Complex, now within the dock estate but if I remember correctly is partly on the site of Langton Dock Station which used to connect to CLC routes at Walton via a tunnel under Rimrose Road next to Lyster Road. The brickwork for the tunnel can still be seen on Rimrose Road just past Strand Road heading north.
Atlantic Park Estate off Dunningsbridge Road was rail connected up to the early 1970's. The site once housed English Electric factory from a level crossing over Bridle Road to the North Mersey Branch. Looking at Google street view the site of the level crossing appears to be opposite Vestey Road but the exact alignment from there to the North Mersey Line I am not sure of as I have been unable to find any pictures. I suspect the line may have been built to serve the Ministry of Supply depot that occupied the site during the war. I believe there are traces of the trackwork on the site, so will try and get some pictures. Reinstating a rail link to the site would be difficult, but it's use as a road linked logistic's park cannot be denied.[/QUOTE]
I am aware of the AIS Liverpool site and have used it very often but rarely visit the forums, but agree progress has been slow due I am told to the bad weather last winter. The original plan was to pile the entire length of new quayside and then back fill to form the new quayside for Liverpool2. This plan has changed slightly and now they are back filling as the piling continues, and whilst there has been some slippage this is within the margin allowed in the original plan so the terminal should open on time towards the tail end of next year. Inside the Maritime Centre Peel have the whole site wired for CCTV and it is possible using a joy stick control to zoom in on works on the site at close up. Big Brother! In the meantime some of the shipping lines are beginning to ramp up their services to the Port of Liverpool, Evergreen being the latest.
http://www.evergreen-line.com/tuf1/jsp/TUF1_Html.jsp?page=TBN1_140728.jsp
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Update - Visited Atlantic Park Estate today, all signs of the rail connection have now disappeared at the Bridle Road end of the estate. The interior main road through the site, although presently blocked at the Bridle Road end appears to be the rail route to the sheds which are mainly empty. A new factory/building now occupies a site on the opposite site of the Bridle Road gate to the houses shown in Google maps, this and new factory sites and Vestey Road I think effectively block any rail connection to the Atlantic Park Estate. However, on a positive note, with all the new building in the area, combined with existing industry including the Santander owned Girobank site, housing and school could make the prospects for reopening Ford station a distinct possibility if the North Mersey line was reopened.
Yes I heard about this, but it all seems a bit 'contrived', like a number of other Peel schemes. It does not sound like an effective solution for handling potential traffic increases generated by Liverpool2, nor have I seen any mention of it (under the prior owners name) in NR discussions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Government strategy (both for this administration and the previous ones since at least 2004) has been to favour rail for freight transport, but proposed projects have to pass the cost/benefit analysis.
Wavertreelad
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 731
Actually I don't think it is directly linked to Liverpool2 developments for a couple of reasons.
1. Firstly the site is being marketed by Peel Logisitcs rather than Peel Ports.
2. Without a direct rail connection to port there is no advantage at all, as the main "distribution" problem from the port will likely remain Church Road and Dunningsbridge Road.
For these reasons I suspect the site might be developed initially as a largely road based warehousing and distribution centre, with the option of a rail connection at a later date. However, if the Kirkby to Wigan line was upgraded to carry the Potter traffic, if it happens, I could see Peel looking at a connection to the Bootle branch on the south side of Kirkdale Station which would then allow an alternative direct connection to the WCML to the Chat Moss route. It's probably some years away yet but the sort of planning that Peel might be looking at in the long term of the Port.
Surely that'd be one hell of a gradient to get from the Bootle Branch to the Ormskirk/Kirkby lines of Merseyrail?
And, this might well be me being dense and misreading what you're saying, but given there are both north and south facing connections via Kirkby/Wigan and Ormskirk/Preston to the WCML from Kirkby, why would it be needed?
Yes, I agree with your points above, however I think it was mentioned by in a video by the manager for the Liverpool2 terminal as addressing the questions about inland distribution.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
P.S.
I hope Peel Ports is not being over optimistic about the prospects for the new terminal; the basis of their analysis is not keeping up with developments in the industry and with the anticipated prospects of the Panama Canal related changes.
For example:
- The Thames ports (plus Felixstowe, and Southampton) are in a price war at the moment and are drawing traffic aware from elsewhere due to the excess capacity,
- Work on the Suez Canal has been announced to allow the passage of larger containers,
- The US west coast ports are cutting into the Asia - East Coast USA traffic.
I still think Liverpool2 is good for Exports from the North West to the US west coast, but it is not in a secure position, and will not draw any of the Asia - Europe trade from the North Sea passage. There is also big concern about the inland transshipment capabilities which look Victoria compared to other Western Europe terminals.
Wavertreelad
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 731
I'd agree there will be a gradient, but from what I have been able to determine the Ormskirk & Kirkby lines from Kirkdale were originally four tracks as far as the junction where the lines separate and much of the infrastructure appears to be in place leaving plenty of space for construction of the graded line.
As for the question of why there might be a need for the connection when the Potter scheme would not require it, the answer is Peel and access to the Port of Liverpool.
As it stands the only link from the Port to the WCML and beyond is via the Bootle branch to the Chat Moss route or with reversal at Edge Hill the route via Runcorn. Earlier indications in this thread suggest both routes will reach capacity in the not too distant future, although of course much depends on traffic moving through the port and the shape of future passenger services and ultimately HS2. Apart from the Liverpool2 development, Peel was interested in reopening the link from Canada Dock primarily to handle scrap metal traffic which would require Atlantic Junction on the Bootle Branch to be reopened and the cutting between it and Derby Road opened out again.
Work has already been carried out within the Port to allow concentration of some traffic within specific areas of the Port and it looks like scrap metal is likely to be concentrated on Canada and Huskisson Docks but how this affects the flows to the Alexandra Dock area I am not sure. However, I suspect many of the existing quayside sheds in this part of the Port will be demolished and were necessary replaced by purpose built buildings more suited for the traffic using them.
Once Liverpool2 opens, Royal Seaforth Container (RSC) will be modernised, ACL will continue to use it and have recently signed a 10 year deal and their five new ships have been specifically designed with RSC in mind. Interestingly, I noted recently a few car carriers using the Port ranging from Grimaldi ships that also call at Portbury carrying Fiat cars, to m/s Autoprestige which is another Portbury caller.
Potential Liverpool2 traffic is more difficult to predict for the reasons shown later in this post, but it surely must be inevitable that the combined bulk and intermodal traffic will at some stage, perhaps five to ten years away, will require an alternative solution to the Bootle branch. The Kirkby/Wigan branch with the Kirkdale connection to the Bootle Branch offers a relatively cheap solution to the problem in the longer term particularly as much of the construction would be on existing railway land. At the same time the increased traffic on the line would aid the business case for a full upgrade and potentially OHLE electrification, with Merseyrail operating dual voltage stock. It might also be possible for Merseytravel to reopen the North Liverpool Branch and divert some Ormskirk and possibly beyond trains via this route, although we will have to wait till next month to see the full 30 year plan to see if this is an option.
The distribution from Liverpool2 was always going to be problem, as the only potential direct rail route, ie the old Liverpool Overheard Railway route is completely blocked whilst the present road link to the M57/M58 along Church Road and Dunningsbridge Road already carries over 300 lorries an hour and is expected to reach 800 per hour once Liverpool2 opens. There are talks of constructing a new road from near Litherland Station on the north side of Church Road at the back of the residential area to link with the new extension of the M57 which will eventually link to the A565 at Thornton that is currently being constructed at Switch Island. As this has taken at least 30 years to reach this stage, I don't think we should hold our breath on this being an easy prospect. The Manchester Ship Canal will offer an alternative but realistically is only likely to be viable to premises adjacent to the canal itself and were sufficient volumes exist to justify the quayside investment.
Much also depends on the markets served by Liverpool2, the North American traffic is unlikely to change so the majority of this will continue to be distributed by road transport because of the way the way the market has development. The real opportunity for Knowsley 700 I suspect will lie in other markets were the product needs to pass through a distribution facility before entering a distribution chain. Local studies have already identified that there is a dire shortage of modern purpose built warehousing in the area. Kirkby Industrial Estate on which Knowsley 700 is located has several companies offering storage, but apart from one or two developments most date from the 1940's and it is this market that Peel will likely target. Ok containers will still need to be shunted between the Liverpool2and the Knowsley site, but this can be done overnight when the roads between the two are less congested. Adding a railhead to the site with direct access to the WCML would also allow trains from other ports potentially to run into the site and then be unstuffed and the cargo fed into the distribution system as what happens at sites like Daventry and even Ditton for Tesco's etc..
Liverpool2 opening has always been "timed" to coincide with the widening of the Panama Canal and this remains largely the case. The original plans for Liverpool2 envisaged it handling vessels of up to 8000 teu, but these have since been changed and it is designed to be capable of handling 14000 teu vessels from day one, and possibly even 18000 teu which is currently the largest vessels in service. However, I have seen news recently that some new contracts will see this increase to 18500 teu, and up to 22000 teu in a few years time. At this point, it should be stressed that vessels probably above 14000 teu will remain confined to the Europe Far East trade, as US Ports are unable to handle anything larger. In fact in the key New York market the restriction could be less due to the infrastructure including the Bayonne Bridge which is having to be rebuilt to allow sufficient air draft for 8000- 10000 teu vessels, a video on Youtube explains how it will achieved.
http://youtu.be/lW5I6lFFXRU
It should also be considered that New York and New Jersey accounts for the equivalent in teu terms of all the containers shipped through US Ports on the eastern and gulf coasts, so even though Baltimore, Norfolk and Savannah will be capable of handling 10000 teu plus vessels, no ship operator is not going to omit calls at New York/New Jersey. Another issue is labour relations in US ports which in some cases are 30 to 40 years behind European practices and are prone to disruption when contracts are due to expire. This is currently happening on the USA West Coast where the existing contracts have expired and traffic is already being diverted to Vancouver and US Gulf/Atlantic Ports to avoid lock outs etc.
Yes the Suez is being widened, but this is only largely to allow a two way flow of traffic, as presently ships have to sail in convoy either north or southbound and at peak periods it can add a day to two to schedules causing scheduling difficulties, particularly in Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg. West Asia ports to the USEC is generally quicker via Suez than via Panama, dependant on rotations, added to that fact many of these West Asian ports cannot vessels 18000 teu vessels and some operators also use the capacity to load and discharge containers enroute at Mediterranean hubs such as Algeciras, Tangier, Malta and even Piraeus for feedering around the Mediterranean, Black Sea and even West African ports.
The UK Port competition I agree is very competitive, we have already seen Thamesport loose all it's deep sea container services and Tilbury likely to follow. So far London Gateway has not picked up any contracts to handle 18000 teu vessels on a regular basis as these services remain in either Felixstowe and Southampton. However, this status quo may only be temporary as I don't think Gateway has sufficient capacity at the moment to handle these monsters, but I suspect it will not be far away. I'm confident that Peel has got it's projections for Liverpool2 more or less spot on, as whilst it may not be handle the 18000 teu vessels initially, there were still be plenty of services using vessels up to 14000 teu to target and remember not all the tonnage may not be for the North of England. Central to Peels plans is the use of Liverpool2 as a transhipment centre for the North Irish sea with daily feeder services to Dublin, Belfast, and Greenock being operated by their subsidiary companies Coastal Containers and BG Freight Lines. No other UK or Continental port will be sustain this sort of frequency and as Irish ports are restricted to vessels of about 2500 teu there is a clear market for Liverpool2.
You're right on that. The line was originally four track all the way from Walton Junction to Exchange, but this was reduced to two out in various stages between 1968 and 1977. I still am somewhat sceptical about whether a chord line would be physically possible, given the costs involved, but naturally I'd love to be proved wrong. The real shame is that the direct connections from the North Mersey Branch and L&Y main lines to the docks have been so thoroughly built over.
- Status