Merseyside: New stations planned

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Was not the former Spellow railway station once considered to be part of a rail improvement plan ?

 

[martynbristow]

As WatcherZero has noted Merseyside received huge piles of money from the EU and the MDC amongst other sources.

And decentralised government works both ways - decentralised spending powers and decentralised taxation.
How much tax do you think you could raise in Liverpool? Enough to cover all these things you say you deserve?

This is why cities in the states regularly go bankrupt.
Liverpool's lifeblood was its docks - and its docks were rendered obsolete by the invention of steel boxes 8' x 8'6" x 20'

Quite right although as a city we actually escaped the axe like elsewhere. We now have Seaforth, Garston and Widnes replacing that.
Not enough has been done to drive growth in those sectors however. Its taken them ages to sort out the rail plans they have and so many containers clog up the roads.

MerseyTravel is run by a select group of politicians who don't really see the best way to run things.
As a resident of the area I feel Liverpool tries to punch its weight rather than generate growth

 

[Wavertreelad]

As WatcherZero has noted Merseyside received huge piles of money from the EU and the MDC amongst other sources.

And decentralised government works both ways - decentralised spending powers and decentralised taxation.
How much tax do you think you could raise in Liverpool? Enough to cover all these things you say you deserve?

This is why cities in the states regularly go bankrupt.
Liverpool's lifeblood was its docks - and its docks were rendered obsolete by the invention of steel boxes 8' x 8'6" x 20'

I wouldn't dispute that huge sums of public funds have been poured into Liverpool particularly since the Toxteth Riots in the early 1980's which was probably would go down as one of the cities darkest times. Those of us who are old enough to remember driving to work the morning after much of Lodge Lane and parts of Upper Parliament Street were raised to the ground will never forget the blue mist and burning smell drifting across local roads hours after the fires had been put out. The sense of disbelief and shame across the majority of the population was immense and perhaps was a turning point, and rightly so. Unfortunately initially this led to the famous illegal budgets set by the Council and the high profile conflict with the Government, for which the city is still paying. Following administrations have followed a less aggressive approach to government and have courted the private sector to invest which eventually is now beginning to make a difference, but I would totally agree local taxation would be very unlikely to fund the sort of support needed and presently granted by central government and EU policies.

Much of Liverpool's docks was already doomed before the container was introduced to the North Atlantic trade in 1968 by Sealand (now part of Maersk), US Lines (went bust in 1984) and Manchester Liners ironically sailing from No 9 Dock Salford as even the conventional ships of the time had become too big to enter the South Docks which were increasingly more costly to maintain. Commercial traffic ceased in these docks in the very early 1970's long before the trades were converted to the container, although the trend continued with the North Docks as far as Sandon Dock. The Mersey Docks & Harbour Board planned Seaforth for the future, but like all the docks north of Alexandra Dock they are in Bootle which is part of Sefton which in the early 1970's was in the newly created Merseyside council area. The subsequent loss of trade to Port of Liverpool was due to many reasons, including poor labour relations, costs, the UK joining the EU resulting in the loss of trades to traditional markets like Australia and New Zealand and the port being viewed as being on the wrong side of the country for trade with EU. This all happened prior to containerships getting too big to enter Seaforth which has been a physical problem for the last six or seven years at least.

Was not the former Spellow railway station once considered to be part of a rail improvement plan ?

I would think it would be possible as it lies on the Bootle Branch, although as the link below shows the site of the ticket office is now a bookies!

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/spellow/

Assuming the Bootle Branch was electrified and enjoyed a frequent service it could be quite popular, in fact thinking about it if Merseytravel were to develop the Edge Hill to Central tunnels link, they could operate a two way circular service around the resultant circular route, just like the 26 & 27 bus route! The one thing that could make a difference are potential plans by the Council and Everton Football Club to move to a new stadium on Walton Hall Park which would then be nearer the lifted Outer Loop Line.

Quite right although as a city we actually escaped the axe like elsewhere. We now have Seaforth, Garston and Widnes replacing that.
Not enough has been done to drive growth in those sectors however. Its taken them ages to sort out the rail plans they have and so many containers clog up the roads.

MerseyTravel is run by a select group of politicians who don't really see the best way to run things.
As a resident of the area I feel Liverpool tries to punch its weight rather than generate growth

Seaforth has not had any regular container trains operating out of it for some years, although discussions are on going with various operators as to restoring them, particularly when Liverpool2 opens at the end of next year. Garston and Widnes complement each other but I suspect that Garston's days may be numbered if Liverpool2 generates significant numbers of containers. Assuming there are sufficient paths are available, and I am looking several years down the road now, it might appeal to Freightliner resite it's Liverpool base with other operators in a refurbished and expanded Seaforth railhead. This would then broadly follow the trend in other UK Ports where the railhead is located in the port area. I would also add that some of those containers we all see on our local Liverpool roads may have also originated from Manchester where the shipping lines and their hauliers store large stocks of empty units, because they do not have similar stocks in the Liverpool area.

I'd agree Merseytravel has traditionally be run for the benefit of passenger traffic, but as you may not be aware they now attend regular meetings with other partners of the local rail network, including Peel Ports, and local industry. Furthermore, they now provide technical support for the entire Greater Liverpool Combined Authority on all transport issues which is a slightly different role to it's original mandate.

 

[martynbristow]

I wouldn't dispute that huge sums of public funds have been poured into Liverpool particularly since the Toxteth Riots in the early 1980's which was probably would go down as one of the cities darkest times. Those of us who are old enough to remember driving to work the morning after much of Lodge Lane and parts of Upper Parliament Street were raised to the ground will never forget the blue mist and burning smell drifting across local roads hours after the fires had been put out. The sense of disbelief and shame across the majority of the population was immense and perhaps was a turning point, and rightly so. Unfortunately initially this led to the famous illegal budgets set by the Council and the high profile conflict with the Government, for which the city is still paying. Following administrations have followed a less aggressive approach to government and have courted the private sector to invest which eventually is now beginning to make a difference, but I would totally agree local taxation would be very unlikely to fund the sort of support needed and presently granted by central government and EU policies.

Much of Liverpool's docks was already doomed before the container was introduced to the North Atlantic trade in 1968 by Sealand (now part of Maersk), US Lines (went bust in 1984) and Manchester Liners ironically sailing from No 9 Dock Salford as even the conventional ships of the time had become too big to enter the South Docks which were increasingly more costly to maintain. Commercial traffic ceased in these docks in the very early 1970's long before the trades were converted to the container, although the trend continued with the North Docks as far as Sandon Dock. The Mersey Docks & Harbour Board planned Seaforth for the future, but like all the docks north of Alexandra Dock they are in Bootle which is part of Sefton which in the early 1970's was in the newly created Merseyside council area. The subsequent loss of trade to Port of Liverpool was due to many reasons, including poor labour relations, costs, the UK joining the EU resulting in the loss of trades to traditional markets like Australia and New Zealand and the port being viewed as being on the wrong side of the country for trade with EU. This all happened prior to containerships getting too big to enter Seaforth which has been a physical problem for the last six or seven years at least.

I would think it would be possible as it lies on the Bootle Branch, although as the link below shows the site of the ticket office is now a bookies!

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/spellow/

Assuming the Bootle Branch was electrified and enjoyed a frequent service it could be quite popular, in fact thinking about it if Merseytravel were to develop the Edge Hill to Central tunnels link, they could operate a two way circular service around the resultant circular route, just like the 26 & 27 bus route! The one thing that could make a difference are potential plans by the Council and Everton Football Club to move to a new stadium on Walton Hall Park which would then be nearer the lifted Outer Loop Line.




Seaforth has not had any regular container trains operating out of it for some years, although discussions are on going with various operators as to restoring them, particularly when Liverpool2 opens at the end of next year. Garston and Widnes complement each other but I suspect that Garston's days may be numbered if Liverpool2 generates significant numbers of containers. Assuming there are sufficient paths are available, and I am looking several years down the road now, it might appeal to Freightliner resite it's Liverpool base with other operators in a refurbished and expanded Seaforth railhead. This would then broadly follow the trend in other UK Ports where the railhead is located in the port area. I would also add that some of those containers we all see on our local Liverpool roads may have also originated from Manchester where the shipping lines and their hauliers store large stocks of empty units, because they do not have similar stocks in the Liverpool area.

I'd agree Merseytravel has traditionally be run for the benefit of passenger traffic, but as you may not be aware they now attend regular meetings with other partners of the local rail network, including Peel Ports, and local industry. Furthermore, they now provide technical support for the entire Greater Liverpool Combined Authority on all transport issues which is a slightly different role to it's original mandate.

Thats interesting theres real scope for trains over night being used.
My point is more we kept a port but the railway didn't really fit in well and wasn't planned. Maybe things will change after the electrification

 

[Wavertreelad]

Thats interesting theres real scope for trains over night being used.
My point is more we kept a port but the railway didn't really fit in well and wasn't planned. Maybe things will change after the electrification

Daft that this might sound, but this is how it was explained at a recent presentation to by the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership. Turn the map of Britain through 90 degrees to the right so the east coast is on the bottom of the page. You will now find that Liverpool is in the centre of the country, whilst Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton which are in the long term Liverpool's main rivals in the future are on the bottom left.If you then take 150 miles from each port this is roughly the boundary for the majority of all containerised collections and deliveries, ie were the driving time is less than 4 hours. Allowing for the usual three hours free time allowed for loading or unloading results in the truck being capable of completing the journey in a shift, as well as picking up another container for the next day. Some trucks will work almost 24/7 using teams of drivers to increase the profitability with an overnight driver using the truck and spare trailers to shunt containers in and out of the port ready for the following day. If the trucks first trip is to say Manchester, dependant on the appointment time etc. it's possible for the truck to complete two journeys and perhaps set up a third for the following day. It's very difficult for rail to compete on these relatively short journeys, except perhaps for bulk movements and as the majority of cargo passing through the port is destined for the North of England, it perhaps explains that the lack of use of the rail. When Liverpool2 opens the dynamics may change as the Port may be able to attract cargo from further afield whch would be more suitable to move by rail.

You will find more detail on the movement of freight through the Mersey on this link from the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership.


http://www.liverpoollep.org/priorities/superport.aspx

 

[HSTEd]

Ports aren't really big employers any more - certainly not in the way the old style of docks were.
Loading all these paths onto lines in an urban area might be counter productive overall if those paths could be used for more passenger trains - the docks can really be anywhere these days.

 

[fowler9]

Ports aren't really big employers any more - certainly not in the way the old style of docks were.
Loading all these paths onto lines in an urban area might be counter productive overall if those paths could be used for more passenger trains - the docks can really be anywhere these days.

Can the docks really be anywhere? We live in an age where ships are that big that there are only very specific sea lanes they can use anywhere near built up areas, we aren't even just talking canals now.

 

[Olaf]

One must remember that Skelmersdale is situated in the area of West Lancashire that is external to the boundaries of the region in question.

That is correct, but the town is one of the largest in England and Wales without a direct rail link. There was a initiative last year, or the year before, to get it connected to the network with Merseytravel being identified as advocate/lead for the project.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe for business but for tourism Liverpool has massive pulling power.

You are right.

One downside though is that tourists tend to be seasonal, but you can nett that out. Commuters and business travellers tend to provide the core of the revenue and are probably the more significant proportion of the total number of travellers. NR uses the numbers in the morning peak to determine capacity requirements and I would guess that tourists would generally avoid travel during the peak period. It would be good to have some numbers - I do not know if there is a survey of the split between tourist and commuter in the region.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would be shocked if it could be proved Manchester gets as much tourist money as Liverpool. It is a lovely place but it really has nothing Liverpool doesn't for the tourist. In fact I would say it has less.

Is there an assumption that tourists are using the local rail network to a any significant extent other than during events such as the tall ships, and the golf tournaments for example? They bring in money, but do they have any significant impact on the numbers used for capacity planning in either the local or regional network?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bit of crossover as conferences/business trip demand are classed alongside tourism in the visitor economy metric because of similar requirements and services but in Greater Manchester in 2013 Visitor employed 77,000 FTE staff and generated £5.8bn in revenue while in Merseyside it employes 43,000 FTE staff and generates £3bn of revenue. There are 4.1m annual hotel stays in Manchester and 2m in Merseyside. Liverpool does have a higher ratio of trips to visitor attractions though, 3.8 per capita vs 1.6 in Manchester, though lower business trips 1.2 in Manchester to 0.7 in Liverpool. Birmingham, Edinburgh and Glasgow all have slightly higher visitor economies than Liverpool too though all the cities are pretty close and barely a fifth of Londons.

Merseytravel forecasts demand in Merseyside to rise to 57,000 jobs and £4.3bn turnover by 2023, Visit Manchester forecasts 112,500 jobs and £8bn turnover by 2020.

Interesting post. Thanks.

 

[fowler9]

That is correct, but the town is one of the largest in England and Wales without a direct rail link. There was a initiative last year, or the year before, to get it connected to the network with Merseytravel being identified as advocate/lead for the project.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You are right.

One downside though is that tourists tend to be seasonal, but you can nett that out. Commuters and business travellers tend to provide the core of the revenue and are probably the more significant proportion of the total number of travellers. NR uses the numbers in the morning peak to determine capacity requirements and I would guess that tourists would generally avoid travel during the peak period. It would be good to have some numbers - I do not know if there is a survey of the split between tourist and commuter in the region.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Is there an assumption that tourists are using the local rail network to a any significant extent other than during events such as the tall ships, and the golf tournaments for example? They bring in money, but do they have any significant impact on the numbers used for capacity planning in either the local or regional network?

This is purely guesswork but I travel through Liverpool South Parkway most days of the week on train and bus services and there are a decent number of people at most times of the day with their cases transfering between various modes of transport.

 

[Olaf]

Peels empire is based mainly on property in and around port areas of which there are vast amounts in the north west of England alone, let alone elsewhere in the UK. I am assuming that that as far as the North West is concerned you are referring to the proposed Wirral and Liverpool Waters schemes on which little construction work has started but these are schemes which are likely to take 30 to even 50 years to complete so the current lack of activity is not perhaps unsurprising.

Yes it is those schemes that I had in mind. In the case of Wirral Waters they lost the principle backer/tenant a year or two back (they went for London Docklands instead) and it is not likely to go ahead. All current projects, on WW at least, are small scale and based on funding from the council or other local government body. When they first launched the project, the proposals were hosted on a site belonging to what appeared to be a college student But yes, time will reveal all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If I remember correctly the proposals mention that the proposals have been compiled with the assistance of Network Rail, but still need to fully explored and costed. Until the plans are either adopted or cancelled presumably with some reasons being stated publicly, we should take the proposals on face value, but of course that is not to say they should not be open to question.

As far as rekindling previously rejected schemes, this really does depend on whether the circumstances have changed or not to verify if the business case is sufficient to justify implementation. I for one would interested to hear of any alternative proposals to those put forward by Merseytravel.

One example I was thinking of was the Borderlands electrification. That was not so much as cancelled, rather it just disintegrated (and the then head of Merseytravel left) when the costings were produced. The fundamental problem with this line is that the level of usage is not high enough to justify the investment that are proposing and they are aware of that. Another was the Woodchurch interchange - again that was fairly advanced in the 80s but the costs were too high. There is more latent demand on the Wirral now but the costs will also be much more extensive now. On top of that the there is less integration in local transport in the area, and more competition from cross-river bus services. Most of the other rail schemes got rejected in the last RUS I think.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Forgive my asking this, but what is the latest-known news about Peel Holdings' future plans that concern any usage of the Liverpool dockland region

 

[Olaf]

And that settles it. You're a crank.

That however is what is being discussed again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why would you like nothing better than Liverpool to be "dominant city of the North of England"? What a twee accolade. I'm not remotely interested in Liverpool 'dominating' Burnley or places as far off as Washington. In fact, the whole concept of 'the North of England' is fairly artificial. Liverpool's closer to many places in Wales and the Midlands than it is to many parts of Oop Northland. My issue is Liverpool being sent to the chopping block just because it doesn't fit in with the most centralized country in the Western world's 'nations & regions' policy which dictates that there only needs to be one notable settlement per artificially-bounded region.
.

That is not what is being proposed nor suggested; to make the investment work you need to build critical mass in a regional centre; therefore the intent is to focus investment on Manchester so it can achieve critical mass in services and thus pull-up the rest of the north west with it. However to make the effort effective it is beneficial to have a single authority for the region receiving the investment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't know what 'long time lapsed' means but it can't be a good thing if you agree with Olaf. It was obviously a troll comment too which makes it all the more baffling.

Strange one, pablo.

If you have nothing to contribute ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hes got a point Michael Heseltines MDC spent £450m of public money and £650m of private money in Liverpool in the 80's and 90's (not inflation adjusted figures) and it was receiving 100m Euros a year from the EU as a deprived region (Westminster directs funds) since 2000. Of the £3.4bn of EU funding and £4bn of private match funding that went in the North West region between 2000 and 2012 55% or £1.85bn of government funding went to Merseyside, over one third of projects were in Merseyside while the next highest recipient was region wide projects with 20%, 15% each went to Manchester and Lancashire with the remainder to Cumbria.

I think it was close to £8Bn in total that went into Merseyside from about 2002 and up to 2010. A lot of it went into property development and new facilities. One consequence of all the construction is that office space costs are about a third of those in Manchester so that is beneficial in attracting new business, but may also indicate that the LEP is not attracting business to the area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I mentioned previously I don't believe trams would have been a suitable for Merseyside, but I would agree that they could work in parts of Liverpool. However, apart from perhaps Birkenhead and Wallasey, there could be little justification for extending a tram system much beyond Liverpool's border.

I agree; a key issue was that Merseyside already had a commuter rail system, so there was a risk of cannibalisation of traffic, with local needs largely being met already; and difficultly in justifying the overhead of 'duplicate' support/maintenance services.

I'm not aware of any report or figures that show there is a corridor that is in need of either light or heavy rail within Liverpool City boundaries.

As already mentioned the nice to have is the tunnel linking the City line to the Northern, but that is going to be expensive and as already stated by yourself and others there are issues with that. Central station capacity is probably the only must have in CP5/6.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is purely guesswork but I travel through Liverpool South Parkway most days of the week on train and bus services and there are a decent number of people at most times of the day with their cases transfering between various modes of transport.

Is there a significant number travelling to/from the same destinations from LSP? If so, would there be enough people to make reasonable use of a tram line, with a service of say one tram every 15 minutes, that can handle around 210 to 250 people?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Forgive my asking this, but what is the latest-known news about Peel Holdings' future plans that concern any usage of the Liverpool dockland region

The ported related news:
http://peelports.com/ports/liverpool/news

... plus project overviews here:
http://www.peel.co.uk/projects/default.aspx

... and property news:
http://www.peel.co.uk/news/area.aspx?ID=240

 

[HSTEd]

Can the docks really be anywhere? We live in an age where ships are that big that there are only very specific sea lanes they can use anywhere near built up areas, we aren't even just talking canals now.

Well as we see in Rotterdam if you don't have a harbour you can just build one in the sea if you want, with enormous breakwaters made of concrete caissons.

And as to sites for such facilities near built up areas, distances in the UK are so small that it almost makes no difference where the containers land.

 

[fowler9]

Well as we see in Rotterdam if you don't have a harbour you can just build one in the sea if you want, with enormous breakwaters made of concrete caissons.

And as to sites for such facilities near built up areas, distances in the UK are so small that it almost makes no difference where the containers land.

That is a good point. The UK is very crowded though so bigger ships dropping off containers on to lorries means more congested roads. Gah, I don't know the answer to be honest. Less consumption is the only answer long term. We live in a finite word.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That however is what is being discussed again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That is not what is being proposed nor suggested; to make the investment work you need to build critical mass in a regional centre; therefore the intent is to focus investment on Manchester so it can achieve critical mass in services and thus pull-up the rest of the north west with it. However to make the effort effective it is beneficial to have a single authority for the region receiving the investment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If you have nothing to contribute ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think it was close to £8Bn in total that went into Merseyside from about 2002 and up to 2010. A lot of it went into property development and new facilities. One consequence of all the construction is that office space costs are about a third of those in Manchester so that is beneficial in attracting new business, but may also indicate that the LEP is not attracting business to the area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I agree; a key issue was that Merseyside already had a commuter rail system, so there was a risk of cannibalisation of traffic, with local needs largely being met already; and difficultly in justifying the overhead of 'duplicate' support/maintenance services.

I'm not aware of any report or figures that show there is a corridor that is in need of either light or heavy rail within Liverpool City boundaries.

As already mentioned the nice to have is the tunnel linking the City line to the Northern, but that is going to be expensive and as already stated by yourself and others there are issues with that. Central station capacity is probably the only must have in CP5/6.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Is there a significant number travelling to/from the same destinations from LSP? If so, would there be enough people to make reasonable use of a tram line, with a service of say one tram every 15 minutes, that can handle around 210 to 250 people?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The ported related news:
http://peelports.com/ports/liverpool/news

... plus project overviews here:
http://www.peel.co.uk/projects/default.aspx

... and property news:
http://www.peel.co.uk/news/area.aspx?ID=240

I am far from an expert but I reckon a tram route from the city centre to the airport roughly following the 86A bus route could be a winner. There are a few choke points along the way. Given those choke points I think getting heavy rail to the airport would be a better idea. This is all pie in the sky stuff from me though, the amount of money required would be huge, the choke points on the route are significant unless people just stop using cars, the 86 has this week got a new fleet of buses and I'm not sure anyone would judge the traffic at Liverpool Airport is worth the investment in trams or heavy rail. Of course without some form of investment (Other than the new buses) nothing ever changes.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The 86 has this week got a new fleet of buses and I'm not sure anyone would judge the traffic at Liverpool Airport is worth the investment in trams or heavy rail. Of course without some form of investment (Other than the new buses) nothing ever changes.

I am sure that the new fleet of buses are greatly appreciated by the users of the number 86 bus service....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is a good point. The UK is very crowded though so bigger ships dropping off containers on to lorries means more congested roads. Gah, I don't know the answer to be honest. Less consumption is the only answer long term. We live in a finite word.

Producing more goods in Britain and importing less container-transported goods is one method.

 

[Gareth]

Hes got a point Michael Heseltines MDC spent £450m of public money and £650m of private money in Liverpool in the 80's and 90's (not inflation adjusted figures) and it was receiving 100m Euros a year from the EU as a deprived region (Westminster directs funds) since 2000. Of the £3.4bn of EU funding and £4bn of private match funding that went in the North West region between 2000 and 2012 55% or £1.85bn of government funding went to Merseyside, over one third of projects were in Merseyside while the next highest recipient was region wide projects with 20%, 15% each went to Manchester and Lancashire with the remainder to Cumbria.

Sorry for the late reply. No, he doesn't have a point. Eastern European countries receive far more substantial amounts of money from the EU every year than Liverpool did. Why aren't they now comparable to Germany? Also noting that much of the money these countries get was for significant infrastructure such as motorways rather than planting flowers in Otterspool, anyone thinking the central government appointed and controlled MDC was going to do anything significantly game-changing needs to smell the tarmac. Flowers and done up warehouses are very nice, of course, but they contribute little to actual wealth creation, which is what Liverpool (and everywhere else) needs to do and, perhaps more pertinently be allowed to do, without central government undermining it with their one-size-fits-all command economics. Another big problem is that such money can actually be positively counter-intuitive. Rather than encouraging entrepreneurialism and innovation, recipients end up organising their very existence around securing further money. Most UK local authorities are in this predicament because they have virtually no responsibilities of any significance and receive most of their funding in the form of a central government block grant, rather than local tax as is the case in most of the developed world. We need to get away from this weirdly centralised 'top down' system and start allowing our cities and counties to take more responsibility for their patches. Perhaps if that happens and Liverpool does really badly where Rotherham surges ahead, maybe, just maybe, then the bigots, of which there's far too many of on here, will actually have a point; though even then, it'll depend on the hypothetical circumstances. It's no coincidence that, oil aside, most of the richest countries in the world are either city states or highly decentralised.

But why are we even talking about this, old chap? Oh yes, because every time there is a Liverpool thread on here, bigots swamp it with their Liverphobic hyperbole. The thing is, it's their problem not mine or anyone else's and I don't particularly like them making it my problem by bumming me out when I want to read about or comment on any given topic. An increasing number of Liverpolitans are just accepting this as a cross they have to bare, god forbid being accused of whining or having a victim complex; but then, Martin Luther King didn't achieve anything by keeping his mouth shut. It's pretty simple: if you take crap, you get served more of the same and crap ain't my thing. So those of you who have these big hangups over Liverpool, that's a pity, but it's your problem that you need to deal with. I'm telling you to cease and if you don't, I'll be responding in kind in other threads about places and topics that interest you. That is all.

Perhaps now I may be allowed to comment on the actual topic at hand without having to dodge or counter irrational, biggoted anti-Liverpool hate?

 

[HSTEd]

Local Government raising local taxes would mean Merseyside having far less to spend and Westminster having far more - if it didn't simply cut taxes further.
This is why you get ghettoisation in the United States and in most of the rest of the developed world.

 

[WatcherZero]

But why are we even talking about this, old chap? Oh yes, because every time there is a Liverpool thread on here, bigots swamp it with their Liverphobic hyperbole.
...

Perhaps now I may be allowed to comment on the actual topic at hand without having to dodge or counter irrational, biggoted anti-Liverpool hate?

Simply answered a question inquiring as to the relative sizes of tourism economies and countered an accusation of under investment with facts and evidence proofing it had received in reality a higher level of public investment. Of course to be blind to evidence and persist in this paranoid conspiracy theory without being able to substantiate your allegations is faith not reason.

Im not accusing Liverpudlians to be unique in this though they seem to be very vocal. Another example was before the transport select committee this week, you had three civic leaders appearing before the committee, liverpool representing Rail North, Manchester representing the One North plan and a leader from Hull. He spent his whole appearance accusing the five cities producing the One North proposal of freezing out Hull and conspiring to bypass them in talks with goverment.

 

[Gareth]

^^^ Yawn...

Anyway, back to the actual topic at hand; yeah there is an actual topic...

Improving National Passenger and Freight Connections - Increasing London-Liverpool is vital, as the low frequency shrinks the natural catchment of Liverpool and Runcorn as rail heads, as is demonstrated in the 20MM report. Long distance services to Scotland, Wales and other areas need to be looked at over the coming years. Freight is important, particularly as the port is undergoing significant expansion and no HS2 means no capacity relief, particularly around Weaver Junction. This will need looking at.

Enabling Growth on the Merseyrail Network - New stock for Merseyrail will need to take into account the nature of the system as a metro/s-bahn. I expect low floor units with walktrough compartments and trains with high acceleration/deceleration to deal with the closely spaced stations. The balance between how many seats there are to standing capacity will need to be right. The trains will also need to be able to deal with the tight curves or the Wirral loop, which has challenged the 507/8s over the years and the rather moist environment. Any expansions of the network onto lines which are not self-contained will almost certainly require dual AC/DC capability. I'm thinking mainly of any Edge Hill spur scheme to incorporate all or part of the 'City Line' into the underground network, as well as any Northern Line extension east of Hunts Cross.

Increasing Capacity in Liverpool City Centre - Liverpool Central takes a heavy burden, when it comes to city centre traffic. Indeed, it is by far the busiest station on the Merseyrail network. Encouraging more use of James Street and Moorfields makes sense, although Central will always be the most convenient station for much of the retail area. Additional services to mop up passenger is a good idea. I feel the Northern Line south of Central has a low frequency (by Merseyrail standards) and it doesn't help Central that 8 out of the 12 trains per hour on the Northern Line terminate. An extra 4 going to South Parkway, once the turnaround facility is built, could help a lot here. Additional stations could help. St James is one being looked at but it's maybe a bit too far south to help out Central in any significant way. A station further up, closer to Chinatown, would probably be more helpful, though it would have to be underground and so more expensive than St James.

Improving Connectivity on the City Line - the 'City Line' compares poorly with proper Merseyrail when it comes to frequency and quality of service. Improvements at Wavertree Junction are a good idea as it can be awkward for the stoppers coming from South Parkway to cross over to the north side, so that they're on the slow lines heading into Lime Street. Indeed, only one of the two trains per hour to Manchester Oxford Road call at Edge Hill. Not ideal. New stations would be welcome, especially at Wellington Road in Wavertree and Smithdown Road. University is an interesting one, as it was part of the Edge Hill Spur proposals in form of an underground station. It wouldn't surprise me with the electrification of the Chat Moss line, capacity constraints around Edge Hill & Lime Street and the fact HS2 will provide no capacity relief for the Liverpool area, that they may be revisiting this idea. It may also be a new station in the cutting between Lime Street & Edge Hill though building this on such a busy and congested stretch of line would be disruptive. Getting Merseyrail to somehow serve Speke would be good, as the Northern Line is very top-heavy currently and an extra southerly destination would be beneficial. Not sure about Runcorn though. I would've thought existing long distance services plus additional services offered by the Halton Curve would suffice. I like the idea of connecting up the airport. If the Northern Line extended to Warrington Central, perhaps an airport link could be the terminus for trains via Mossley Hill & West Allerton.

Facilitating a High Quality Service on the Cheshire Line - sounds good. I like the idea of extending Merseyrail to Warrington Central and having regional express services onwards to Manchester Airport. New stations would help make this practical. Passing places and more platforms at certain stations would probably be required which wouldn't be easy though perhaps not necessarily impossible.

Connecting via Halton Curve - no-brainer really. The most interesting aspect is the idea of the route being used for services to South Wales. Would this not be longer than going via Crewe, even with a change?

Improving Connections to Chester and Ellesmere Port - both of these towns are outside of Merseytravel's area. Electrifying to Helsby could expand the Merseyrail service, removing the diesel island. Crewe-Chester is interesting. Why do Merseytravel care? Some say Merseyrail could be extended to Crewe but we're getting rather far out at this point. Chester-London services could be electric but many extend into North Wales and so would need to still be diesel or shunted. Could they be thinking of yet another diversion route for Liverpool-London/Birmingham trains? Chester-Leeds sounds fun and I assume Merseytravel are mainly thinking about services for Newton-le-Willows.

Serving New Development on the Southport – Wigan and Ormskirk – Preston Line - Merseyrail extension to Preston could be a welcome development, however, one has to think of how many trains it would justify. Perhaps a 2tph of the 4tph to Ormskirk? Extending the Ormskirk branch to Burscough Bridge is a decent idea as it allows interchange with the Southport=Wigan/Manchester line.

Connecting to Skelmersdale and New Development in Wigan - I've always thought the Kirkby line should extend to Skelmersdale and that the Wigan/Manchester side should also go into Skelmersdale. This would be done with a delta junction on the existing line. Sure, certain stations either side would loose direct services to each other but that is par for course with such alterations. Merseytravel seem to be looking at a slightly different idea: Skelmersdale but with the Wigan services continuing to Kirkby. Indeed, they want improved services between Kirkby and Manchester/Rochdale but Kirkby's not a natural terminus for such services.

Enhancing the Borderlands Line - incorporating this into Merseyrail sounds nice though I have reservations about the long distance and rural nature of the line. I always liked the idea of the scheme to create a new link so that, after Woodchurch, Borderlands trains would head due east on a new alignment terminating at a high level station at Birkenhead Central. Merseyrail would take the small remainder towards Bidston. The idea was dropped a long time ago and probably won't re-emerge though.

Converting Freight Lines to Passenger Usage - big reservations about this. It's one of those ideas that sounds good before you get to the practicalities. A freight line from Olive Mount to Bootle Docks is a rather circuitous alignment for getting people from the likes of Tue Brook into the city centre, although I'm sure, journey time-wise, it would be competitive in the rush hour. Also, it would have to not have a detrimental effect on the freight, which is important for the dock activity and which is predicted to grow over the coming years.

Selected New Stations - I agree with all the proposed stations mentioned. The likes of Town Meadow have been on the table for at least 25 years. There definitely needs to be at least one new station between Moorfields and Vauxhall, however, the population density of that stretch is still fairly low, so it make take years of re-population before we see it.

 

[fowler9]

I am sure that the new fleet of buses are greatly appreciated by the users of the number 86 bus service....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Producing more goods in Britain and importing less container-transported goods is one method.

I will be honest and say that most people will not notice the difference in the buses.

Reducing the use of imported goods would be my answer in general but some people on here seem to want to live in a world of perpetual growth which is not possible.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I think it was close to £8Bn in total that went into Merseyside from about 2002 and up to 2010. A lot of it went into property development and new facilities. One consequence of all the construction is that office space costs are about a third of those in Manchester so that is beneficial in attracting new business, but may also indicate that the LEP is not attracting business to the area.

I can't comment on the figure nor the specific schemes these funds included, but one fact is that the spending was concentrated on the southern end of the city as far north as the city centre. There have been very few new office developments in the city centre as I believe the Council placed a ban on large scale new construction in order to try and get developers to refurbish existing buildings so the character of the area is maintained. Locals may recall the battle between Council and Bill Davies(?) who owned Exchange Flags immediately behind the town hall which lay almost empty for years before a start was made and even today I don't think it is anywhere near full. The other important development is the development during this period of the internet and on line technology that has seen office jobs dramatically reduced in recent years and is a continuing process as well as out of town developments.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am far from an expert but I reckon a tram route from the city centre to the airport roughly following the 86A bus route could be a winner. There are a few choke points along the way. Given those choke points I think getting heavy rail to the airport would be a better idea. This is all pie in the sky stuff from me though, the amount of money required would be huge, the choke points on the route are significant unless people just stop using cars, the 86 has this week got a new fleet of buses and I'm not sure anyone would judge the traffic at Liverpool Airport is worth the investment in trams or heavy rail. Of course without some form of investment (Other than the new buses) nothing ever changes.

I'm not sure that Liverpool is suitable for trams anymore as the roads broadly within the Queens Drive boundary are already congested. Even if you then restore the track to the wide central reservations of Mather Avenue, Aigburgh Road, Walton Park Road etc it means passengers have to cross these busy routes to board the trams, surely not something you want to encourage from a H&S angle let alone further reducing the flow of traffic. Why would you want to build a tram line from the city centre to the Airport when you already have invested a fortune in LSP and the Halton Curve which potentially could see an increase in services along the nearby mainline. A heavy rail branch of some description is the answer, but it is I suspect many years away largely because of the expense and I suspect passenger numbers could not be guaranteed.

I am sure that the new fleet of buses are greatly appreciated by the users of the number 86 bus service....

The route had a brand new fleet a few years ago, so I guess this may be some time off.

Producing more goods in Britain and importing less container-transported goods is one method.

But if we manufacture more, it should be for export as our economy will never be able to compete is lower value/volume commodities, even the Chinese are now trying to increase quality to fend over completion from other emerging global manufacturing producers. So we will still need those ships to call in the UK anyway. Readers might be surprised to learn the biggest export in containers from North Europe (Le Havre to Hamburg incl UK) is waste paper followed by plastic scrap, and metal scrap. The waste paper and plastic all move in 40ft units, and the metal in 20fts for recycling. The paper is de-inked and processed with virgin pulp in China, Indonesia, South Korea and India to make recycled photocopier paper, whilst the cardboard from all those supermarket cages is also recycled to make packaging for those goods we import from China and South East Asia. The plastic is recycled to make the likes of garden furniture, and cheap plastic goods which is returned in the recycled packaging. The metal is also recycled into various products dependant on the type of metal. Despite the huge numbers of containers involved in this recycling trade, eastbound the ships sail about 40% empty, and fill up the spare capacity in empties. In the UK, roughly for every five laden containers importers only two are exported laden, we thus have some way to go.

That is a good point. The UK is very crowded though so bigger ships dropping off containers on to lorries means more congested roads. Gah, I don't know the answer to be honest. Less consumption is the only answer long term. We live in a finite word. .

[
Felixstowe and Southampton are the only UK ports that can currently handle 18000 teu containerships although not necessarily fully laden, London Gateway will be able to do so when the second berth comes on stream I think later this year. Obviously with all these ports in the South of UK the issue of congestion on the roads is a major concern, particular as so many journeys involve empty movements back to the ports because return loads are not available. Liverpool2 will initially be able to handle 14000teu vessels initially thus offering the shipping lines an alternative to what is a bigger problem for them, port congestion. At the moment, four large vessels have arrived in Southampton and in order to turn them around the port authority has redeployed staff from dealing with landside operations to concentrate on the vessel movements. As a result the number of containers on the terminal increases which slows down exchanges to and from both road and rail. A few minutes ago there were 33600 teu + plus containers on the terminal, including 8600 teu empties. Rotterdam is currently redeveloping one part of it's Delta terminal, resulting in massive congestion in the port, and ships diverted to Antwerp, which already has labour shortages, a problem now which plagues Hamburg. This congestion leads to delays in schedules and ships arriving late, missing berthing slots and increasing the problem. Exports are delayed which can delay payment for the goods, whist delays to imports usually results in increased costs to arrange special deliveries by road, instead of rail/road combinations, creating more traffic congestion.

 

[Bevan Price]

I would think it would be possible as it lies on the Bootle Branch, although as the link below shows the site of the ticket office is now a bookies!

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/spellow/

Assuming the Bootle Branch was electrified and enjoyed a frequent service it could be quite popular, in fact thinking about it if Merseytravel were to develop the Edge Hill to Central tunnels link, they could operate a two way circular service around the resultant circular route, just like the 26 & 27 bus route! The one thing that could make a difference are potential plans by the Council and Everton Football Club to move to a new stadium on Walton Hall Park which would then be nearer the lifted Outer Loop Line.

Yet another stupid idea - destroy a useful public park to make space for a football club, and doubtless a huge car park. Hopefully, the government will block the destruction of the park if Liverpool council gives way to the football club.

As for Spellow station - I think the route to the city centre is probably too indirect to attract a lot of passengers from the more direct buses along County Road to the city centre. The location in the steam era must have been a bit grim - in a deep cutting, adjacent to a tunnel.

 

[fowler9]

I can't comment on the figure nor the specific schemes these funds included, but one fact is that the spending was concentrated on the southern end of the city as far north as the city centre. There have been very few new office developments in the city centre as I believe the Council placed a ban on large scale new construction in order to try and get developers to refurbish existing buildings so the character of the area is maintained. Locals may recall the battle between Council and Bill Davies(?) who owned Exchange Flags immediately behind the town hall which lay almost empty for years before a start was made and even today I don't think it is anywhere near full. The other important development is the development during this period of the internet and on line technology that has seen office jobs dramatically reduced in recent years and is a continuing process as well as out of town developments.



I'm not sure that Liverpool is suitable for trams anymore as the roads broadly within the Queens Drive boundary are already congested. Even if you then restore the track to the wide central reservations of Mather Avenue, Aigburgh Road, Walton Park Road etc it means passengers have to cross these busy routes to board the trams, surely not something you want to encourage from a H&S angle let alone further reducing the flow of traffic. Why would you want to build a tram line from the city centre to the Airport when you already have invested a fortune in LSP and the Halton Curve which potentially could see an increase in services along the nearby mainline. A heavy rail branch of some description is the answer, but it is I suspect many years away largely because of the expense and I suspect passenger numbers could not be guaranteed.




The route had a brand new fleet a few years ago, so I guess this may be some time off.



But if we manufacture more, it should be for export as our economy will never be able to compete is lower value/volume commodities, even the Chinese are now trying to increase quality to fend over completion from other emerging global manufacturing producers. So we will still need those ships to call in the UK anyway. Readers might be surprised to learn the biggest export in containers from North Europe (Le Havre to Hamburg incl UK) is waste paper followed by plastic scrap, and metal scrap. The waste paper and plastic all move in 40ft units, and the metal in 20fts for recycling. The paper is de-inked and processed with virgin pulp in China, Indonesia, South Korea and India to make recycled photocopier paper, whilst the cardboard from all those supermarket cages is also recycled to make packaging for those goods we import from China and South East Asia. The plastic is recycled to make the likes of garden furniture, and cheap plastic goods which is returned in the recycled packaging. The metal is also recycled into various products dependant on the type of metal. Despite the huge numbers of containers involved in this recycling trade, eastbound the ships sail about 40% empty, and fill up the spare capacity in empties. In the UK, roughly for every five laden containers importers only two are exported laden, we thus have some way to go.




[
Felixstowe and Southampton are the only UK ports that can currently handle 18000 teu containerships although not necessarily fully laden, London Gateway will be able to do so when the second berth comes on stream I think later this year. Obviously with all these ports in the South of UK the issue of congestion on the roads is a major concern, particular as so many journeys involve empty movements back to the ports because return loads are not available. Liverpool2 will initially be able to handle 14000teu vessels initially thus offering the shipping lines an alternative to what is a bigger problem for them, port congestion. At the moment, four large vessels have arrived in Southampton and in order to turn them around the port authority has redeployed staff from dealing with landside operations to concentrate on the vessel movements. As a result the number of containers on the terminal increases which slows down exchanges to and from both road and rail. A few minutes ago there were 33600 teu + plus containers on the terminal, including 8600 teu empties. Rotterdam is currently redeveloping one part of it's Delta terminal, resulting in massive congestion in the port, and ships diverted to Antwerp, which already has labour shortages, a problem now which plagues Hamburg. This congestion leads to delays in schedules and ships arriving late, missing berthing slots and increasing the problem. Exports are delayed which can delay payment for the goods, whist delays to imports usually results in increased costs to arrange special deliveries by road, instead of rail/road combinations, creating more traffic congestion.

I agree with you about the tram route along the 86 bus route to be honest. And for the record the bus route got another brand new bus fleet on 1st September.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Yet another stupid idea - destroy a useful public park to make space for a football club, and doubtless a huge car park. Hopefully, the government will block the destruction of the park if Liverpool council gives way to the football club.

As for Spellow station - I think the route to the city centre is probably too indirect to attract a lot of passengers from the more direct buses along County Road to the city centre. The location in the steam era must have been a bit grim - in a deep cutting, adjacent to a tunnel.

Totally agree on the football stadium idea, especially when there are so many brown field sites in the area which could be redeveloped. Unfortunately many of these are outside Liverpool City Council border which perhaps explains why it may have been the Council who came up with the idea, as other proposals had been rejected.

Spellow Lane - I'd agree, but then you are assuming that every passenger wants to get to Liverpool city centre. Assuming the North Mersey Branch and Wapping Tunnel schemes were brought back into use and all lines were electrified it would be possible to run Lime Street or Central to Southport and Ormskirk and beyond trains thereby providing alternative public transport options to buses from the area most of which broadly serve the same area, except the 68 which is far from direct to anywhere!. If I remember correctly the latest proposals also mention the option of running through trains from beyond Ormskirk and diverting some on the route via the North Mersey Branch. Linking this to reopening stations along the Bootle Branch would enable the network to service wider areas of region and aiding wider public transport and employment opportunities in the north of the city in particular.

Thinking about my earlier suggestion of running a circular service, it would not work as there is no link at Kirkdale between the Bootle Branch and the lines back to Central. In any case, my preference would be construct a link at Kirkdale from the Bootle Branch to the Kirkby Branch which then could give direct access to the WCML at Wigan which is due to be cleared for intermodal traffic from Kirkby anyway to enable services to run from the Potter railhead.

I agree with you about the tram route along the 86 bus route to be honest. And for the record the bus route got another brand new bus fleet on 1st September.

I might get a chance to look at some this afternoon, the last fleet change can only have been about five or six years ago!

 

[HSTEd]

Reducing the use of imported goods would be my answer in general but some people on here seem to want to live in a world of perpetual growth which is not possible.

The problem with zero growth economies is they appear to result on wealth becoming a zero sum game. Which is likely to result in major social stratification and the creation of a serf-like underclass.
This is why I prefer schemes to reduce the impact of growth so that it can continue.

 

[AndyHudds]

Totally agree on the football stadium idea, especially when there are so many brown field sites in the area which could be redeveloped. Unfortunately many of these are outside Liverpool City Council border which perhaps explains why it may have been the Council who came up with the idea, as other proposals had been rejected.

Spellow Lane - I'd agree, but then you are assuming that every passenger wants to get to Liverpool city centre. Assuming the North Mersey Branch and Wapping Tunnel schemes were brought back into use and all lines were electrified it would be possible to run Lime Street or Central to Southport and Ormskirk and beyond trains thereby providing alternative public transport options to buses from the area most of which broadly serve the same area, except the 68 which is far from direct to anywhere!. If I remember correctly the latest proposals also mention the option of running through trains from beyond Ormskirk and diverting some on the route via the North Mersey Branch. Linking this to reopening stations along the Bootle Branch would enable the network to service wider areas of region and aiding wider public transport and employment opportunities in the north of the city in particular.

Thinking about my earlier suggestion of running a circular service, it would not work as there is no link at Kirkdale between the Bootle Branch and the lines back to Central. In any case, my preference would be construct a link at Kirkdale from the Bootle Branch to the Kirkby Branch which then could give direct access to the WCML at Wigan which is due to be cleared for intermodal traffic from Kirkby anyway to enable services to run from the Potter railhead.



I might get a chance to look at some this afternoon, the last fleet change can only have been about five or six years ago!

There is no way the council will want either club to leave the city boundaries nor either will the people of Liverpool. The council will see it as a bad move for the cities reputation and the city itself, and as I said there would be more than likely be a massive backlash from the cities residents. Sorry off topic I know.

 

[8A Rail]

Yet another stupid idea - destroy a useful public park to make space for a football club, and doubtless a huge car park. Hopefully, the government will block the destruction of the park if Liverpool council gives way to the football club.

OK - bearing in mind your thoughts, suggest somewhere within the city boundaries were this could be possible bearing in mind transport links to consider too. Oh by the way, it is NOT the whole park that will disappear just partial in a particular corner close to their existing ground.

(It sounds you dont like football but you must remember, both football clubs, as well as others especially Manchester, they generate lots of income for local business with an average of 40000 per game (or more), attract tourists and the list goes on, so it is here to stay and EFC do need a new ground as development of Goodison Park is extremely diffciult so where do they go?).

 

[Wavertreelad]

OK - bearing in mind your thoughts, suggest somewhere within the city boundaries were this could be possible bearing in mind transport links to consider too. Oh by the way, it is NOT the whole park that will disappear just partial in a particular corner close to their existing ground.

(It sounds you dont like football but you must remember, both football clubs, as well as others especially Manchester, they generate lots of income for local business with an average of 40000 per game (or more), attract tourists and the list goes on, so it is here to stay and EFC do need a new ground as development of Goodison Park is extremely diffciult so where do they go?).

It is difficult, as a supporter of the team that has made the commitment to enlarge their existing stadium, I would not have been adverse to sharing a much enlarged stadium with our blue neighbours which perhaps would have been the ideal solution from a practical point of view, but I agree not everybody would take the same view.

Starting by looking at Google Earth and the area around Goodison Park, and expansion of the stadium would require wholesale demolition of many houses most of which appear to be occupied, as apart from the additional space required, the additional height would almost completely obliterate natural light reaching some dwellings. Moving around the area there are no obvious places apart from green spaces including Walton Hall Park, so north of the Chat Moss line which roughly divides the city equally north and south, the two locations that I could identify were.

1. The former MPTE bus shed site on Edge Lane. Good access to the M62 motorway, and buses into the city centre on both Edge Lane and Picton Road. It's near both Wavertree Technology Park and Edge Hill Stations and slightly isolated away from residential areas. If a suitable partner could be found the stadium could also host a wide range of leisure needs including gyms, restaurants, and conference facilities. With the old Littlewood's building next door planned to be a hotel the site would appear to be ideal, although would require some local configuration of the road network.

2. Trafalgar Dock to Sandon Dock, owned by Peel and earmarked for development as Liverpool Waters, it's is somewhat remote from public transport, but could allow the Peel Scheme to be kicked started. Again leisure and dining areas could be provided and there would be no shortage of parking spaces.

I haven't looked at any in the south of Liverpool on the basis that the Club would likely prefer to stay in the north of the city.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And for the record the bus route got another brand new bus fleet on 1st September.

I thought that I was correct about the new fleet on the 86 bus service in the last few days. Thanks for confirming this.

 

[fowler9]

I thought that I was correct about the new fleet on the 86 bus service in the last few days. Thanks for confirming this.

Indeed, all (Or many at least) started operating on Monday 1st September. Finally had a ride on one last Thursday. Look nice inside and outside, a little bit bright on the inside. Not exactly a massive difference in customer experience internally in my opinion but I think they look a lot better externally than the older Alexander bodied buses they replaced with their mad big eyes and happy faces look.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Totally agree on the football stadium idea, especially when there are so many brown field sites in the area which could be redeveloped. Unfortunately many of these are outside Liverpool City Council border which perhaps explains why it may have been the Council who came up with the idea, as other proposals had been rejected.

Spellow Lane - I'd agree, but then you are assuming that every passenger wants to get to Liverpool city centre. Assuming the North Mersey Branch and Wapping Tunnel schemes were brought back into use and all lines were electrified it would be possible to run Lime Street or Central to Southport and Ormskirk and beyond trains thereby providing alternative public transport options to buses from the area most of which broadly serve the same area, except the 68 which is far from direct to anywhere!. If I remember correctly the latest proposals also mention the option of running through trains from beyond Ormskirk and diverting some on the route via the North Mersey Branch. Linking this to reopening stations along the Bootle Branch would enable the network to service wider areas of region and aiding wider public transport and employment opportunities in the north of the city in particular.

Thinking about my earlier suggestion of running a circular service, it would not work as there is no link at Kirkdale between the Bootle Branch and the lines back to Central. In any case, my preference would be construct a link at Kirkdale from the Bootle Branch to the Kirkby Branch which then could give direct access to the WCML at Wigan which is due to be cleared for intermodal traffic from Kirkby anyway to enable services to run from the Potter railhead.



I might get a chance to look at some this afternoon, the last fleet change can only have been about five or six years ago!

Hope you had the chance to give them a go. I thought it was longer than 5 or six years since the last fleet was introduced although I could be wrong and I wouldn't think it was much earlier than that. I think it is because the 86 an 86A is almost a flagship route. The older (Uglier) Alexander bodied buses are being cascaded to other routes currently using single deckers I believe (Hopefully keeping the same frequency) so everyone is a winner.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem with zero growth economies is they appear to result on wealth becoming a zero sum game. Which is likely to result in major social stratification and the creation of a serf-like underclass.
This is why I prefer schemes to reduce the impact of growth so that it can continue.

Sorry mate, what I said was a little narrow in its scope. I don't think zero growth is possible or even desirable (Unless mother nature just wipes us out making it possible) but we will have to limit growth until we find the means to spread out further, possibly from this planet.