Merseyside: New stations planned

[Wavertreelad]

I am not sure I would agree about the area being poorly served by public transport. The frequent 82 bus passes within 50 - 100 yards of the station site, and runs more or less parallel to the railway from South Parkway. Also the 26/27 bus (every 10 minutes in daytime) links the area with many parts of Liverpool.

I would not disagree with your comments, the point I was alluding to is that like unfortunately in Liverpool many of the major bus routes run from the outskirts of the city to the city centre. The 26/27 circular route, 60, 61, 68 & 81 are the only ones that cross the city roughly north to south, whilst the rest tend to radiate out from the city centre like the spokes on a wheel, except along the riverside roads north and south of the Pier Head. The point being that to get from say Huyton or Norris Green, or say Bootle the only way of reaching the Baltic Triangle at the moment is two buses which can be expensive and or very time consuming. Whilst a new station on the site would not entirely solve the problem, it would go some way to improving connectivity and prospects of the many companies in the locality and their employees.



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


Andy Heath, operations director and deputy managing director, answers questions on key aspects of service


ECHO readers put a Merseyrail boss on the spot with a series of tough questions, raising issues including poor communication with customers, the future makeover of Moorfields station – and whether the company “fiddled” its punctuality figures.

And a question from ECHO Breaking News editor Ben Turner led to Andy Heath, operations director and deputy managing director of Merseyrail, stressing that his company would now be clearer when talking to the public about delays.

The Q&A coincided with the publication of a National Rail Passenger Survey, which gave Merseyrail an overall satisfaction rating of 90% (3% down on last year, though still 9% above the national average and 4% above the regional average).

But Andy Heath faced many questions which were heavily critical of Merseyrail.

And after spending almost two hours answering the points put by passengers, he told the ECHO: “While I am pleased we attained 90%, I fully understand we need to improve in a number of areas.”

He added: “We really need to improve the information provided about services and how we manage delays. We have dropped from 93% to 90% and have to accept that and step up to the plate – and we will.”

Some 470 people were interviewed for the survey, which took place in the autumn.

Here, then, are just a few of the highlights of the interview which saw readers being given explanations about key aspects of the Merseyrail service.


Q: When is the most-needed upgrade going to happen at Moorfields station, to bring it in line with Liverpool’s other loop stations?

Martyn Pearson

A: Andy Heath says: “Following completion of Hamilton Square in March 2015, Moorfields will be upgraded in three sections between April 2015 and March 2016.

“Wirral line platform will be closed April to July, with the Southport-bound platform closed from August to November and the Hunts Cross-bound platform closed January to April. Full details of how passengers can plan their journey will be published in the near future.”

Q: You serve the public so why can you not give layman’s term explanations for train disruption? There has been some negative feedback on social media about the use of terms such as ‘problems with line-side equipment’ and ‘railhead conditions’.

Ben Turner, ECHO Breaking News Editor

A: “Totally agree. This is something we are reviewing, indeed during last Sunday’s service disruption, messages were changed from poor rail conditions to severe icing on the third rail. We recognise what people want and you will see a real change over the next few weeks.”

Q: You often run ‘semi-fast’ services that skip stations when trains are running late in order to catch the service back up. If that train reaches its terminal station within the five minute ‘late’ cut off time does this still count as an on time train to your charter? Do you ‘bodge’ the numbers to ensure your numbers remain above that magical 92%?

Gareth Perriam

Q: Is it fair, when a Southport to Hunts Cross service runs late, for it not to stop at any stations between Central and Hunts Cross? This may enable Merseyrail’s figures to show the train arrived at Hunts Cross on time but what about those passengers who have to get off at Moorfields or Central to get the next train to take them to Brunswick, St Michael’s, Aigburth, Cressington or Liverpool South Parkway. This happened on two out of three mornings recently and surely can’t be done for the convenience of customers!

Dave Stringfellow

A: “We operate semi-fast services where appropriate to restore trains to the correct path. If we don’t do that, due to short turnarounds at terminal ends, an increased number of trains will run significantly late due to congestion.

“We take into account time of day and location of trains to the same destination (normally not more than eight minutes behind). A review of how/when we implement is undertaken on a weekly basis by myself to ensure we have the right balance.

“To clarify, this year we have had our performance target increased to 95.1% for 2015 by Merseytravel and, as regards semi-fast trains, these are not counted as arriving ‘right time’ as even if they did, they have not called at all booked stations within the train plan (ie they fail).

“The stopping patterns of the semi-fasts have been reviewed against both passenger loadings at stations and where there is increased likelihood of a connection back to the stations missed.”





Q: What is Merseyrail doing to deal with the increasing unreliability of its service which is, no doubt, down to ageing infrastructure and rolling stock?

Peter

Q: When will you be able to run six-carriage trains throughout rush hour? Why should so many commuters who have paid for seats have to stand packed so close together on cramped and uncomfortable three-carriage trains?

Joe Wright

A: “We have 59 trains of which 50 are deployed in the morning peak. Two additional are kept as spares to implement should we have any train faults in the morning, with the other seven being either maintained (each train undergoes a 14-day ‘MOT’), faults repaired or having exterior enhancements.

“Of these 50 trains, 39 are required to operate all trains as a three-car, with the other 11 used to create six-car services. We allocate six-car services to those trains which, through passenger counts, indicate increased capacity is required. As passenger growth continues with the current fleet, we are supporting Merseytravel in looking at alternative solutions to cater for this growth.

“With regards to fleet enhancement/new fleet, this is a project that we are supporting Merseytravel with as they explore the potential options going forward. A lot of work has been undertaken to consider the solution which is subject to political discussions over the next six months, following which we hope that a decision will be reached.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-boss-faces-tough-questions-8528593

 

[Olaf]

The Merseyrail franchise is much longer than the replacement for Northern, so I would have thought the more likely result will be that some current Northern routes could be transferred to Merseyrail completely were there are no other operators on the line, and some would be operated by "Transport North" on behalf of Merseyrail in the Merseyside region. Thus assuming OHLE electrification of all these routes, Kirkby to Wigan, and Bidston to Wrexham could be completely Merseyrail operated, whilst Preston to Ormskirk via the Bootle Branch to Lime Street, and Chester via Halton Curve to Lime Street could be Transport North.
.

There is the commercial aspect of existing contracts, but with the Rail North coming into existence it will become an oddity. With Merseytravel participating in the Rail North and electrification becoming more widespread, it would probably server Merseyside better if services were to be provided by the Northern franchisee and have them integrated into the Manchester Hub.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd very surprised if Peel's plans for either or both sites were based on a single client and both are very long term projects so until the economy fully recovers I would not expect to see significant development of either scheme, although I suspect the Wirral Waters scheme will start to materialise first.

Peel only had the one principle backer, and it is my understanding that they lost that and thus the reason that the work has been scaled back. Peel has insufficient funding to develop the projects under it's own steam. Further, the principle backer was not affected by the financial downturn, though investment from that source is now more constrained.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't believe any estimates have been published recently as presumably this is one of activities that Merseytravel is currently undertaking as part of the development of the 30 year plan.

Which is what I am expecting; essentially they have not made any progress on detailed planning in the last thirty years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't know about other routes, some transfer could be expected if there was further electrification. Main thing Merseytravel has lobbied Rail North for is a Merseyrail branded Liverpool LS-Manchester Airport (politicians think it important Liverpool is seen to have fast/easy transport links to Manchester airport to help attract international investment into Merseyside) which would likely be subcontracted to Northern to operate (and if further electrification a Liverpool-Kirkby-Wigan-Chat Moss-Manchester Airport service too).

I can understand the branding and the on-going sub-contracting, but my thinking is that having a separate 'Island' within the 'Northern' franchise area under Rail North seems to to add extra cost. I'm thinking that the rest of the North would like some more equitable distribution of the funding that Merseyrail currently receives.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the answer lies is what has not happened as been part of their plans since the early 1970's! I think that alone tells you a story regardless of the reasons - nowt going to change in the future because priorities are elsewhere. So that takes care of that question!

My thinking as well. A firm boot in the pants might help things along.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That map reminds me: I've heard that a Chinatown station was planned way back when. It would've been an underground station and located at the Upper Duke St/Berry St/Great George St intersection, on the cathedral side here... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...1s0x487adf8a647060b7:0x42dc046f3f176e01?hl=en
.

Yes, St James was to be re-opened in an earlier plan to serve the China Town area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
With Tesco cancelling development of the Kirkby site, I am guessing that the Headbolt Lane project has also/will be cancelled. Any news on this?

 

[flypie]

Merseyside and Merseyrail will fight tooth and nail to not be integrated into the Manchester Hub. The idea that City Commuter and regional services are the same is a bad idea.
Hopefully once Osborne is gone we can stop shovelling money to Manchester as capital of the North and building decent City based Brands like Merseyrail, which can cooperate to proved serves between themselves, while inter city copes with National Travel.

And St James and China town where different stations.

 

[frodshamfella]

Merseyrail i think is generally an excellent system, it should expand, take over Bidston - Wrexham would be good to see. As would Ormskirk to Preston

 

[8A Rail]

Merseyrail i think is generally an excellent system, it should expand, take over Bidston - Wrexham would be good to see. As would Ormskirk to Preston

Why not expand on the CLC route to and go beyond Hunts Cross. Orginally it was suppose to be Hough Green as the outer post but I would go further to Warrington Central. However, I think in due course, overhead electrification will take care of that.

 

[po8crg]

My expectation for Merseyrail is that their next stock (replacing the 507/508 fleet, probably in the 2020s) will be dual-voltage stock, and that, during its lifetime (ie before 2060!), there will be overhead electrification of the CLC route, of the Halton Curve, of Warrington-Chester, of Kirkby-Wigan Wallgate and of Ormskirk-Preston, and Merseyrail will take over the last two of those entirely and extend Northern Line trains to Warrington Central (over CLC) and to Chester (over Halton Curve).

They probably also extend Wirral Line from Ellesmere Port to Helsby - probably overhead wire from Helsby to Ince and Elton when the Warrington-Chester route is electrified and extend the third rail from Ellesmere Port to the Stanlow Refinery boundary, then use a battery for the couple of miles inside the refinery. That seems like the perfect case for a battery - a short distance between two electrified sectors, where there are good reasons not to electrify that section.

 

[flypie]

My expectation for Merseyrail is that their next stock (replacing the 507/508 fleet, probably in the 2020s) will be dual-voltage stock, and that, during its lifetime (ie before 2060!), there will be overhead electrification of the CLC route, of the Halton Curve, of Warrington-Chester, of Kirkby-Wigan Wallgate and of Ormskirk-Preston, and Merseyrail will take over the last two of those entirely and extend Northern Line trains to Warrington Central (over CLC) and to Chester (over Halton Curve).

They probably also extend Wirral Line from Ellesmere Port to Helsby - probably overhead wire from Helsby to Ince and Elton when the Warrington-Chester route is electrified and extend the third rail from Ellesmere Port to the Stanlow Refinery boundary, then use a battery for the couple of miles inside the refinery. That seems like the perfect case for a battery - a short distance between two electrified sectors, where there are good reasons not to electrify that section.

How would you extend the Northern Line via Halton Curve.

Has anyone ever stated that electrification through Stanlow is a problem?

The route out to Wigan and Skem will have to matched with Manchester's route to Wigan to allow a through route. It would be foolish to force a break where non is needed.

 

[po8crg]

How would you extend the Northern Line via Halton Curve.

By adding a curve at South Parkway so trains can get from Northern line onto WCML there. You could even run Crewe trains that way if there was demand.

Has anyone ever stated that electrification through Stanlow is a problem?

Shell, when the original electrification to Ellesmere Port was done - Merseyrail wanted to go to Helsby, and Shell objected on safety grounds. I don't know about overhead; as far as I know it's never been considered.

The route out to Wigan and Skem will have to matched with Manchester's route to Wigan to allow a through route. It would be foolish to force a break where none is needed.

Yes, that would make sense, but there is a break at Kirkby at present; moving that to Wigan would be an improvement; Liverpool-Manchester might have to go via Bolton unless the via Atherton route was also electrified (and that might get 750V DC OHLE for tram-train electrification if TfGM gets their way).

 

[martynbristow]

By adding a curve at South Parkway so trains can get from Northern line onto WCML there. You could even run Crewe trains that way if there was demand.

Electrifying anything and sending it into Liverpool Central isn't possible with the current configuration of operations. Liverpool Central is badly designed for its current purpose and the recent re-facia didn't tackle the underlying problems pointed out by the RUS.
I don't think you could put significant more passenger flow through the Link without causing problems, theres no where for people to go when waiting for trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Merseyside and Merseyrail will fight tooth and nail to not be integrated into the Manchester Hub. The idea that City Commuter and regional services are the same is a bad idea.
Hopefully once Osborne is gone we can stop shovelling money to Manchester as capital of the North and building decent City based Brands like Merseyrail, which can cooperate to proved serves between themselves, while inter city copes with National Travel.

And St James and China town where different stations.

Its a difficult one, it would work nicely if we joined up all the Northern areas to form an integrated operation, it would share costs and work together but then you take your eye off the local ball. The problem you have is a lot the services serve multiple purposes, so you have trains serving Liverpool-Manchester commuters and Merseyside Commuters and Manchester Commuters, if you give it to one theres aways going to be some people upset and if you share it there will always be problems.

 

[flypie]

Yes, that would make sense, but there is a break at Kirkby at present; moving that to Wigan would be an improvement; Liverpool-Manchester might have to go via Bolton unless the via Atherton route was also electrified (and that might get 750V DC OHLE for tram-train electrification if TfGM gets their way).

Going via Bolton is not such a bad deal. There are plenty of potential routes between Liverpool and Manchester that could be (re)created.

See http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2014/12/liverpool-doesnt-need-hs3-to-connect-to.html

I'm not sure Shells safety claims would add up especially as they allow diesels through and before that steam locos. The Simplest solution would be to construct a tunnel over the existing line using techniques like http://www.moore-concrete.com/civil/product/1/22/ then cover in earth.

 

[plannerman]

I'm not sure Shells safety claims would add up especially as they allow diesels through and before that steam locos. The Simplest solution would be to construct a tunnel over the existing line using techniques like http://www.moore-concrete.com/civil/product/1/22/ then cover in earth.

They'll never go to that expense, for a line which carries so few people and with so few prospects for growth.

I can't comment on the tightness of Shell's safety case, but I could envisage a situation where Merseyrail/whoever wouldn't want to run an electric train through the refinery anyway. Bearing in mind if there is an escape of gas or some other nasty, if it's ignited by a spark from the train it's the crew/passengers who'll be spread over a large part of west Cheshire.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They'll never go to that expense, for a line which carries so few people and with so few prospects for growth.

I can't comment on the tightness of Shell's safety case, but I could envisage a situation where Merseyrail/whoever wouldn't want to run an electric train through the refinery anyway. Bearing in mind if there is an escape of gas or some other nasty, if it's ignited by a spark from the train it's the crew/passengers who'll be spread over a large part of west Cheshire.

But could that not happen with heat or a spark/shoot of flame from an internal combustion engine?

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

Electrifying anything and sending it into Liverpool Central isn't possible with the current configuration of operations.

Liverpool Central doesn't work well for terminating operations as they clog up space on its two platforms. Is there room at Brunswick for a turnback siding to be added? Would need more unit diagrams, I suppose, but it would remove the blockage. I have a feeling there's also some sort of turnback already present south of Central in the tunnels?

There is also, I'm told, a header tunnel parallel to the main platforms at Central (you can see the entrance to it on the left as you go southbound into Liverpool Central, and it features on a very old map I saw at the Records Office years ago). Could this be opened out and converted into a platform 3 for terminating services, as an alternative?

If the Kirkby and Ormskirk trains did not have to terminate at Central, the two existing platforms would have tons of capacity, particularly if you built an above-platform waiting area like Manc Picc P13/14 to remove some of the people from the platforms when their train isn't next. (If you did this you could them remove all the seating and posters etc to free up some more platform space).

Neil

 

[flypie]

But could that not happen with heat or a spark/shoot of flame from an internal combustion engine?

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


Liverpool Central doesn't work well for terminating operations as they clog up space on its two platforms. Is there room at Brunswick for a turnback siding to be added? Would need more unit diagrams, I suppose, but it would remove the blockage. I have a feeling there's also some sort of turnback already present south of Central in the tunnels?

There is also, I'm told, a header tunnel parallel to the main platforms at Central (you can see the entrance to it on the left as you go southbound into Liverpool Central, and it features on a very old map I saw at the Records Office years ago). Could this be opened out and converted into a platform 3 for terminating services, as an alternative?

If the Kirkby and Ormskirk trains did not have to terminate at Central, the two existing platforms would have tons of capacity, particularly if you built an above-platform waiting area like Manc Picc P13/14 to remove some of the people from the platforms when their train isn't next. (If you did this you could them remove all the seating and posters etc to free up some more platform space).

Neil

You can get a spark from wheel on rail, there is also a public road parallel to the track. Which would present far more danger, in the event of a crash.

I also don't buy the idea of the track having little prospect it could be used as part of a central to Warrington BQ line, via the stock interchange line, which Merseyrail is keen to put into passenger use.

In the days before Merseyrail trains from Wirral came into Central offloaded passengers then went forward into the header tunnel and reversed back to pick up passengers on the other platform.

When designed the Edge Hill link was supposed to take the trains that now stop, that is in the plans again.

 

[8A Rail]

Just to clarify before any more reference is made to Stanlow Oil Refinery -it is not owned by "Shell", they sold it to an Indian Company "Essar Energy" in 2011, who apparently wish to sell it. However, they have made some investment in the site but it is subject to a major overhaul, hence one of the reasons why "Shell" sold it in the first instance.

..... You can get a spark from wheel on rail, there is also a public road parallel to the track. Which would present far more danger, in the event of a crash.........

For information, the road in question is a "private road" with no through access anymore - that was done away with some time ago.

 

[Olaf]

Why not expand on the CLC route to and go beyond Hunts Cross. Orginally it was suppose to be Hough Green as the outer post but I would go further to Warrington Central. However, I think in due course, overhead electrification will take care of that.

My thinking is that is the route that would benefit the most from integration of Merseyrail into the 'Northern' franchise with the adoption of a dual-electric mode fleet.

That would allow the adoption of new route options, and a well sited passing loop would allow limited stop services on the line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Merseyrail i think is generally an excellent system, it should expand, take over Bidston - Wrexham would be good to see. As would Ormskirk to Preston

I think the full adoption of the Wrexham line is a step too far, but a part-way electrification as far as Shotton would optimum solution.

With a dual-supply fleet and a doubling of the frequency of the Bidston - Shotton section it is likely that patronage could be boosted while meeting Merseytravel's objectives as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Going around the loop again:
http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/1..._Wirral_railway_station_back_on_track/?ref=ar

There would be insufficient patronage from people living on the estate to justify the GBP 7M+ cost - as was determined in the previous analysis exercises.

The station would only draw sufficient patronage to justify the costs if users from the surrounding areas were to also used the station, but that would lead to increased traffic on the estate roads probably beyond their design - as was determined in the previous analysis exercises.

Not sure were the 800 votes in support of the project came from.

 

[edwin_m]

My thinking is that is the route that would benefit the most from integration of Merseyrail into the 'Northern' franchise with the adoption of a dual-electric mode fleet.

That would allow the adoption of new route options, and a well sited passing loop would allow limited stop services on the line.

There are limited stop services today, not only EMT and TPE but some Northern ones too. So I don't think a passing loop would be necessary, as the shortening of the section shared by fast and slow trains and the better acceleration of EMUs on stoppers would between them make quite a difference.

I think the full adoption of the Wrexham line is a step too far, but a part-way electrification as far as Shotton would optimum solution.

With a dual-supply fleet and a doubling of the frequency of the Bidston - Shotton section it is likely that patronage could be boosted while meeting Merseytravel's objectives as well.

That was being talked about a few years back, with the electric reversing at Shotton and the diesel reversing at a new station north of Hawarden Bridge to serve the industrial estate better. Thus both ends would have a through train to the stations in the middle serving the main employment area. The timetable would have provided connections with a short wait on the same platform at one of these stations.

Part of the problem with the line at present is that the end-to-end is a shade under an hour, so turnarounds are very tight to maintain an hourly service with two units. Unfortunately with electrification to Shotton only, the residual diesel service takes a shade under 30min...

 

[Olaf]

There are limited stop services today, not only EMT and TPE but some Northern ones too. So I don't think a passing loop would be necessary, as the shortening of the section shared by fast and slow trains and the better acceleration of EMUs on stoppers would between them make quite a difference.

Yes, but only if the existing traffic patterns. Expansion and new services would need the capacity of the line to be increased. Granted, this could possibly be achieved with signalling enhancements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One discussion I came across recently, was around the through running of services on the Wirral line to provide direct connections to Manchester via the Page Moss line.

The option is being discussed as an add-on to the City line extension into Central Station. The idea being that the services would run limited stop on the Liverpool to Manchester section, but as a stopping service on the Wirral lines.

The usual; no cost estimates, no detailed proposals, but it would offer a big improvement in access from the Wirral to the principle business centre in the region.

 

[Wavertreelad]

There is the commercial aspect of existing contracts, but with the Rail North coming into existence it will become an oddity. With Merseytravel participating in the Rail North and electrification becoming more widespread, it would probably server Merseyside better if services were to be provided by the Northern franchisee and have them integrated into the Manchester Hub..

It would think it would be difficult for Merseyrail to be incorporated into any Manchester Hub scheme as this would also imply that Merseytravel would have to the same way, and politically that just is not going to happen. However, I could see both authorities working closer together with Lancashire and Cheshire Councils.

Peel only had the one principle backer, and it is my understanding that they lost that and thus the reason that the work has been scaled back. Peel has insufficient funding to develop the projects under it's own steam. Further, the principle backer was not affected by the financial downturn, though investment from that source is now more constrained.

Well Wirral Waters is under way,

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/wirral-waters-work-begins-new-8613193

Construction work has started on the first building in the Wirral Waters development – an £8million campus for Wirral Met College.

The campus is due for completion in September 2015 and will be dedicated to delivering training and education for Construction and the Built Environment.

It will be the first key landmark on Wirral Waters – a 30-year vision by Peel Group to transform 500 acres of Birkenhead dockland, and one half of the Mersey Waters Enterprise Zone.

The college is being built by construction and infrastructure firm Morgan Sindall.

With Tesco cancelling development of the Kirkby site, I am guessing that the Headbolt Lane project has also/will be cancelled. Any news on this?

I don't believe the two projects are or were related. There has been more residential developments completed in the area and this together with developments on Kirkby Industrial Estate might be sufficient to justify the new station scheme.

Merseyside and Merseyrail will fight tooth and nail to not be integrated into the Manchester Hub. The idea that City Commuter and regional services are the same is a bad idea.

Hopefully once Osborne is gone we can stop shovelling money to Manchester as capital of the North and building decent City based Brands like Merseyrail, which can cooperate to proved serves between themselves, while inter city copes with National Travel.

And St James and China town where different stations.

I'd agree about fighting tooth and nail to fight integration with Manchester, but also point out that previous administrations on both sides of the political spectrum have largely ignored Merseyside's infrastructure renewal for about the last four decades. Perhaps in the decades to come Mr Osborne's vision might be applauded?

Why not expand on the CLC route to and go beyond Hunts Cross. Orginally it was suppose to be Hough Green as the outer post but I would go further to Warrington Central. However, I think in due course, overhead electrification will take care of that.

My expectation for Merseyrail is that their next stock (replacing the 507/508 fleet, probably in the 2020s) will be dual-voltage stock, and that, during its lifetime (ie before 2060!), there will be overhead electrification of the CLC route, of the Halton Curve, of Warrington-Chester, of Kirkby-Wigan Wallgate and of Ormskirk-Preston, and Merseyrail will take over the last two of those entirely and extend Northern Line trains to Warrington Central (over CLC) and to Chester (over Halton Curve).

They probably also extend Wirral Line from Ellesmere Port to Helsby - probably overhead wire from Helsby to Ince and Elton when the Warrington-Chester route is electrified and extend the third rail from Ellesmere Port to the Stanlow Refinery boundary, then use a battery for the couple of miles inside the refinery. That seems like the perfect case for a battery - a short distance between two electrified sectors, where there are good reasons not to electrify that section.

I'd agree on the Warrington Central idea, something I believe the Merseytravel 30 year plan is looking at. I could see the CLC with OHLE and Merseyrail operating their dual voltage trains as far as Warrington whilst the regional or Intercity operators operated longer distance services.

I would expect that in time the Wirral Line from Ellesmere Port to Helsby will be electrified with OHLE including past the Stanlow Refinery site in order to all through running and maximum flexibility. The Stanlow Refinery site is I believe now largely contained within the perimeter fence alongside Oil Sites Road which is still accessible to the general public, but through access is denied. I'd doubt there is little risk of a spark in a public area causing any immediate danger, although of course an explosion of any sort as the result of an accident could have far reaching effects.

How would you extend the Northern Line via Halton Curve.

Has anyone ever stated that electrification through Stanlow is a problem?

The route out to Wigan and Skem will have to matched with Manchester's route to Wigan to allow a through route. It would be foolish to force a break where non is needed.

By adding a curve at South Parkway so trains can get from Northern line onto WCML there. You could even run Crewe trains that way if there was demand.

Shell, when the original electrification to Ellesmere Port was done - Merseyrail wanted to go to Helsby, and Shell objected on safety grounds. I don't know about overhead; as far as I know it's never been considered.

Yes, that would make sense, but there is a break at Kirkby at present; moving that to Wigan would be an improvement; Liverpool-Manchester might have to go via Bolton unless the via Atherton route was also electrified (and that might get 750V DC OHLE for tram-train electrification if TfGM gets their way).

Electrifying anything and sending it into Liverpool Central isn't possible with the current configuration of operations. Liverpool Central is badly designed for its current purpose and the recent re-facia didn't tackle the underlying problems pointed out by the RUS.
I don't think you could put significant more passenger flow through the Link without causing problems, theres no where for people to go when waiting for trains.

Its a difficult one, it would work nicely if we joined up all the Northern areas to form an integrated operation, it would share costs and work together but then you take your eye off the local ball. The problem you have is a lot the services serve multiple purposes, so you have trains serving Liverpool-Manchester commuters and Merseyside Commuters and Manchester Commuters, if you give it to one theres aways going to be some people upset and if you share it there will always be problems.

But could that not happen with heat or a spark/shoot of flame from an internal combustion engine?

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


Liverpool Central doesn't work well for terminating operations as they clog up space on its two platforms. Is there room at Brunswick for a turnback siding to be added? Would need more unit diagrams, I suppose, but it would remove the blockage. I have a feeling there's also some sort of turnback already present south of Central in the tunnels?

There is also, I'm told, a header tunnel parallel to the main platforms at Central (you can see the entrance to it on the left as you go southbound into Liverpool Central, and it features on a very old map I saw at the Records Office years ago). Could this be opened out and converted into a platform 3 for terminating services, as an alternative?

If the Kirkby and Ormskirk trains did not have to terminate at Central, the two existing platforms would have tons of capacity, particularly if you built an above-platform waiting area like Manc Picc P13/14 to remove some of the people from the platforms when their train isn't next. (If you did this you could them remove all the seating and posters etc to free up some more platform space).

Neil

Connecting the Northern Line to the Crewe/Halton Curve route without building a new curve as LSP would be possible if Freightliner were to vacate their present site at Garston. This would allow the old route from just beyond Cressington Station to be rebuilt through the old Freightliner facility allowing both lines to connect at Speke. In the longer term it would then possible to construct a branch to serve Liverpool John Lennon Airport from a junction located behind Speke Retail Park which would then cut back under Speke Boulevard and round to the airport. A new station could be constructed at Speke Boulvard to serve the retail park and industrial site if necessary.

As for the prospects of Freightliner vacating the Garston site, well if you look at the long term prospects for intermodal growth in the region it is likely to come from the Liverpool2 development. In all other main UK Ports the Port Authority generally controls the movements of containers too and from the associated rail terminal to the berth in the local shunt which typically costs about GBP20.00/GBP30.00 per move. The cost of the shunt from Liverpool2/Seaforth to Garston by road is several times more, and because there are no trains from Garston to Scotland or the North East which would be prime areas to be served from Liverpool, the only alternative is road haulage to Manchester, which also effectively adds a day to the transit time as well as considerable additional cost. Moving the Freightliner terminal to within the Port area could also improve the business case for linking the Bootle Branch to the Kirkby /Wigan line at Kirkdale as well providing access both north and south to the WCML as well as to Yorkshire and the North East.

The electrification of the CLC route and the moving of the Garston Freightliner terminal would also help the Central Station capacity problem as no longer would it be necessary for Kirkby and Ormskirk trains to terminate at the station.

I also don't buy the idea of the track having little prospect it could be used as part of a central to Warrington BQ line, via the stock interchange line, which Merseyrail is keen to put into passenger use.

In the days before Merseyrail trains from Wirral came into Central offloaded passengers then went forward into the header tunnel and reversed back to pick up passengers on the other platform.

When designed the Edge Hill link was supposed to take the trains that now stop, that is in the plans again.

I thought I read somewhere that Merseytravel were looking at bringing the stock interchange line into public use to increase capacity and of course linked to the Edge Hill Scheme. The later of course might become necessary should Lime Street become the home of HS2 and/or HS3 services.

Just to clarify before any more reference is made to Stanlow Oil Refinery -it is not owned by "Shell", they sold it to an Indian Company "Essar Energy" in 2011, who apparently wish to sell it. However, they have made some investment in the site but it is subject to a major overhaul, hence one of the reasons why "Shell" sold it in the first instance.

For information, the road in question is a "private road" with no through access anymore - that was done away with some time ago.

Oil companies around the UK and perhaps the world sold off many refineries mainly because many needed considerable investment to bring their facilities upto date to produce modern products. Shell Haven (Now London Gateway Port) is another example whist the Coryton refinery also on the Thames is a more recent example. The last time I visited the Stanlow site about five years ago there was evidence that the operation had been trimmed back considerably since my last visit in the 1960's! I guess one of the reasons why Stanlow survived was the local concentration on industries that used the products and bye-products produced by the refinery. Looking on Google maps tonight, Oil Sites Road appears to be open to the public but the Google car only appears to have gone as far as the Innospec site before turning around. If I remember correctly the road continues on beyond this point but is blocked further up by a fence??

 

[Olaf]

It would think it would be difficult for Merseyrail to be incorporated into any Manchester Hub scheme as this would also imply that Merseytravel would have to the same way, and politically that just is not going to happen. However, I could see both authorities working closer together with Lancashire and Cheshire Councils.

No that is not the case; Merseytravel would stay as would the Authorities in the other administrative areas that are to be covered by Rail North. The integration of the operator under the consolidated 'Northern' franchise will facilitate rationalisation of back-office/admin services and the more complete integration of services into the Northern Hub.

 

[fowler9]

I honestly can't see where the curve from the Northern Line to the Liverpool spur of the WCML would go.

 

[Olaf]

Well Wirral Waters is under way,

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/wirral-waters-work-begins-new-8613193

Construction work has started on the first building in the Wirral Waters development – an £8million campus for Wirral Met College.

The campus is due for completion in September 2015 and will be dedicated to delivering training and education for Construction and the Built Environment.

It will be the first key landmark on Wirral Waters – a 30-year vision by Peel Group to transform 500 acres of Birkenhead dockland, and one half of the Mersey Waters Enterprise Zone.

The college is being built by construction and infrastructure firm Morgan Sindall.

That is not what was envisioned to be the Wirral Waters. This project has been re-located from the New Ferry area, and it is a long way from the close to GBP 10B project it was set out to be. The commercial core of the project is dead, and is not likely to be revived in the near future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't believe the two projects are or were related. There has been more residential developments completed in the area and this together with developments on Kirkby Industrial Estate might be sufficient to justify the new station scheme.

My understanding is, and that is based on project reports available at the time, that Tesco would have been making a financial contribution to the project, and that the anticipated footfall attracted by the store played a major part in the justification of the project. The costs can be re-worked, and there is also the possibility of a replacement stepping in, but at the moment I suspect that the scope of project will need to be reviewed at the very least.

 

[flypie]

It was Mersey Travel who mentioned the stock interchange line in there plans. There are link to it here, together with a diagram. http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-train-to-future.html

Connecting the lines via Gartson docks is would be possible but not only is the port there now there is a housing estate nearer town. The original route is now the Gaston bypass.

In there 30 year plan Merseytravel do include a link between CLC and WCML via Liverpool airport, but provide no details. I suspect it would have to be a tunnel just after allerton curve on the CLC.

 

[fowler9]

It was Mersey Travel who mentioned the stock interchange line in there plans. There are link to it here, together with a diagram. http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-train-to-future.html

Connecting the lines via Gartson docks is would be possible but not only is the port there now there is a housing estate nearer town. The original route is now the Gaston bypass.

In there 30 year plan Merseytravel do include a link between CLC and WCML via Liverpool airport, but provide no details. I suspect it would have to be a tunnel just after allerton curve on the CLC.

That was my thinking. There is no room on either side of the line to branch off and tunnel under what is there. I also think the line would not be possible mainly because of the new housing.

 

[Olaf]

I'd agree about fighting tooth and nail to fight integration with Manchester, but also point out that previous administrations on both sides of the political spectrum have largely ignored Merseyside's infrastructure renewal for about the last four decades. Perhaps in the decades to come Mr Osborne's vision might be applauded?

I think the infrastructure work that needed to be done on Merseyrail has been funded and completed. The exception is the project around the capacity constraints at Central (and possibly Moorfields) with estimates at the time coming in at GBP 30M. That is still on schedule to take place as far as I am aware (from the last CP5 updated IFIRC).

I do not see why there is such opposition around the possible consolidation of the franchise (or concession - which ever) when Merseytravel will come under Rail North in the same way as all the other northern transport administrations. To make the investment work, there has to be a clear focus on the growth of Manchester as the center of teh Northern region.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd agree on the Warrington Central idea, something I believe the Merseytravel 30 year plan is looking at. I could see the CLC with OHLE and Merseyrail operating their dual voltage trains as far as Warrington whilst the regional or Intercity operators operated longer distance services.

I think this demonstrates were the separate 'island' thinking between Merseyside and Greater Manchester has had a detrimental impact.

It would be more efficient and offer a better end service if services ran all the way through between Liverpool and Manchester with a terminus beyond the central core in the respective areas. I think that terminating services at Warrington is a little dated, and we need to look at a consolidated urban region 20 years down the line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Connecting the lines via Gartson docks is would be possible but not only is the port there now there is a housing estate nearer town. The original route is now the Gaston bypass.

Now then, young man. These highlighted words are not to your usual high standard of posting submissions. The second one in particular reminds me of bicycles, berets, striped jumpers, a string of onions and strong odour of garlic.

 

[fowler9]

Now then, young man. These highlighted words are not to your usual high standard of posting submissions. The second one in particular reminds me of bicycles, berets, striped jumpers, a string of onions and strong odour of garlic.

It does give the area of my forefathers a rather continental sound. I'm also not sure about the Gaston Bypass being along a former rail route. The bridge over Church Road has, I am pretty sure, only been there since the road was built.

 

[Bevan Price]

1. To extend Merseyrail to Warrington would probably need them to widen part of the line to 4 tracks, providing loops for fast trains to overtake the slower Merseyrail trains - so not a cheap option.

2. Any new Merseyrail stock is likely to be optimised for rapid acceleration, hence a low maximum speed - maybe as low as 60-70 mph. That will make it unsuitable for operation on most parts of the WCML (e.g. to Crewe or Preston via Wigan), because it would reduce the number of available paths.

3. Personally, I think that Preston - Burscough (or Ormskirk) and Ellesmere Port - Helsby are likely to remain as diesel-operated islands for a very long time -- although it would not surprise me if, at some stage, they tried to close Ellesmere Port to Helsby to passengers.

 

[flypie]

I think the infrastructure work that needed to be done on Merseyrail has been funded and completed. The exception is the project around the capacity constraints at Central (and possibly Moorfields) with estimates at the time coming in at GBP 30M. That is still on schedule to take place as far as I am aware (from the last CP5 updated IFIRC).

I do not see why there is such opposition around the possible consolidation of the franchise (or concession - which ever) when Merseytravel will come under Rail North in the same way as all the other northern transport administrations. To make the investment work, there has to be a clear focus on the growth of Manchester as the center of teh Northern region.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think this demonstrates were the separate 'island' thinking between Merseyside and Greater Manchester has had a detrimental impact.

It would be more efficient and offer a better end service if services ran all the way through between Liverpool and Manchester with a terminus beyond the central core in the respective areas. I think that terminating services at Warrington is a little dated, and we need to look at a consolidated urban region 20 years down the line.

The problem with an all North service is it will not service any area. If the services between adjoining city regions are left to those city regions to sort out, then each city should get it's own say. There may need to be some access rights in each adjoining region and perhaps some form of arbitration court. What we would see with a all North system would be the longer routes preferred over the shorter routes and the intra city service compromised.

If say Liverpool to Mcr via Wigan is to be run with 50:50 train split between GM and Merseytravel there is no real problem as standards are set nationally. Will will not see a repeat of the battle of Clifton Junction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Now then, young man. These highlighted words are not to your usual high standard of posting submissions. The second one in particular reminds me of bicycles, berets, striped jumpers, a string of onions and strong odour of garlic.

I'm sorry but the very idea of the place unnerves me.

 

[Camden]

I do not see why there is such opposition around the possible consolidation of the franchise (or concession - which ever) when Merseytravel will come under Rail North in the same way as all the other northern transport administrations. To make the investment work, there has to be a clear focus on the growth of Manchester as the center of teh Northern region.

And I think that it's daft comments like this which show why it's a bad idea.

Merseyrail is a cracking system which serves the city of Liverpool. Not Manchester (which I know is the only northern city we're supposed to believe exists) but Liverpool. And it does so with an efficiency and patronage that other cities can only marvel at. Did you know that last year there were nearly 40 million more passenger journeys starting/ending on Merseyside than in Greater Manchester, for example?

On top of that, it's almost entirely self contained, like the tube, meaning it does its job without the problems associated with mixing traffic and congested stations in other areas.

And so all this you're expecting the folks of Liverpool, and the country, to chuck away rather than improve, to supposedly focus on the supposed growth of Manchester as the supposed center (sic) of the universe. Sorry, "teh Northern region".

When that's the basis of your argument for stripping a major city of its well used city focused rail system, your complaints about "the rest of the North would like some more equitable distribution of the funding that Merseyrail currently receives" fall rather flat and appear somewhat agenda-laden (I doubt any city other than Manchester is intended to be the recipient). Especially given how much has already been spent building Metrolink to date?... And just been on a thread about the new platform at the lightly used Manchester Airport station (which if I recall rightly is also getting a HS2 station?).

The system does need to be modernised. The fleet is old and not as efficient as it could be. There are inefficiencies in some of its track layouts limiting services, no doubt costing the concession money in lost patronage. Other lines are cut short from where the money ran out to finish the job. It could be better, even more well used, cheaper to run.

But by no means does it not get used, and by no means is there any justification to wreck it by smashing it to pieces for the "benefit" of some sulky Mancunians upset that it means Manchester isn't the only place in the North with a decent local city based train system. For Manchester to live, Liverpool must die? A pretty pathetic excuse for a plan for "growth".

On that note, it will soon be time for me to leave my hotel and head to get the next Merseyrail to Birkenhead for a day of meetings, before getting the Merseyrail back to Lime Street for the journey home. Monday, I'm in Manchester where I'll be using Manchester's Metrolink to get to Salford Quays.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

1. To extend Merseyrail to Warrington would probably need them to widen part of the line to 4 tracks, providing loops for fast trains to overtake the slower Merseyrail trains - so not a cheap option.

2. Any new Merseyrail stock is likely to be optimised for rapid acceleration, hence a low maximum speed - maybe as low as 60-70 mph. That will make it unsuitable for operation on most parts of the WCML (e.g. to Crewe or Preston via Wigan), because it would reduce the number of available paths.

3. Personally, I think that Preston - Burscough (or Ormskirk) and Ellesmere Port - Helsby are likely to remain as diesel-operated islands for a very long time -- although it would not surprise me if, at some stage, they tried to close Ellesmere Port to Helsby to passengers.

Closing the Helsby to Ellesmere Port line would be a bit short sighted considering the Wirral Waters project. This route used to be well used.