Merseyrail Expansion

[CaramellDansen]

I'd not move Junction, rather I'd build Mill Dam Lane

Not a bad idea!

Well since Network Rail's seemingly well-used costing formulae of "Think of a number, triple it, then add three "0"'s at the end" would be brought into play. the mind boggles at what figure they would attach to such works.

If you're the CEO of a major manufacturing firm (your 12th holiday this year being dependent on your mates in government giving you those extra zeroes), it's hardly mind-boggling! In fact, it's quite sensible!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How vociferous are the general Burscough electorate on rail-related matters?

 

[AlastairFraser]

How vociferous are the general Burscough electorate on rail-related matters?

The area's elected officials and railway passenger groups have consistently campaigned for rail expansion in the area.
See the below links:
1.) https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/southport-preston-west-lancs-mps-18001679

2.) https://www.southportreporter.com/-southport-mersey-reporter-/1140/page-13.shtml

3.) https://opsta.chessck.co.uk/BurscoughCurves

4.)

Councillor Pugh calls on all parties for Burscough Curves progress | OTS News - Southport

The next few months may well determine whether the restoration of the Burscough Curves becomes a reality or remains on an eternal wish list. That is the view of the Liberal Democrat leader on Sefton Council, John Pugh. The former MP is calling on all parties to get behind a new drive to make it

www.otsnews.co.uk

 

[Djgr]

Will the same apply to the Lib Dems on the council?

I think we are talking about elections for Metro Mayor in Liverpool City Region and the possibility of Steve Rotheram not being reelected (i.e. 0%)

Not a bad idea, but you'd need to send Merseyrail to Burscough Bridge - it's too far to be a viable OSI from Burscough Junction.

The plan wouldn't stand up economically just for Southport to Preston because there's a direct express bus (X2) every hour.

Also you'd need to build a new bay to the east of the road bridge or somewhere else in the vicinity, to cater for the Merseyrail service and keep it off the mainline.
Otherwise you have to path around the Southport to Preston, the Southport to Man Oxford Rd, and the Southport to Stalybridge.

It would help if the population of Burscough wasn't 9,935.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I think we are talking about elections for Metro Mayor in Liverpool City Region and the possibility of Steve Rotheram not being reelected (i.e. 0%)


It would help if the population of Burscough wasn't 9,935.

There's a fair bit of housebuilding out that way though. And it puts a much bigger population just one change away from Liverpool Central (Appley Bridge/western end of Wigan).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There's a fair bit of housebuilding out that way though. And it puts a much bigger population just one change away from Liverpool Central (Appley Bridge/western end of Wigan).

Isn't Appley Bridge part of West Lancashire?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Isn't Appley Bridge part of West Lancashire?

Yes, which is why I denoted it separately from the western part of Wigan.
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Isn't Appley Bridge part of West Lancashire?

The bulk of the settlement of Appley Bridge certainly is in West Lancashire. However the station serving said settlement is actually in Greater Manchester and has long benefitted from GM area fares regimes. As such local public transport users are very familiar with the idea of travelling to Manchester and rather less so with going to Liverpool.

Likewise people in Wigan generally are these days much more affiliated to Manchester than Liverpool, hardly surprising after 50 years of being within Greater Manchester with all the effects on public transport provision that has brought. The familial ties to Liverpool that came with people relocating after WW2 have been massively eroded by now.

 

[Djgr]

Isn't Appley Bridge part of West Lancashire?

Burscough is not LCR and therefore it is hard to see how anything to do with it is going to happen without the good folks of Lancashire putting their hands in their pockets (and this is ALWAYS where this speculation reaches a dead end).

 

[8A Rail]

What's wrong with doing this? Is there something that would stop this at-platform reversal happening here, or (preferably) at South Parkway?
View attachment 154050

Expensive but necessary if we don't want Merseyrail to continue being a patchwork of short-term decisions to maximise profit.
This situation will require investment (god forbid northerners get that!) but is necessary to modernise the system, ensure its longevity and provide more and greater avenues for expansion and improvement.
Yes, it has a monetary cost. The alternative has greater costs institutionally (and arguably monetarily too). That's how investments work!

It's silly! Simply the Northern Line just carries on to Gateacre, much easier. Don't need a platform four unless you envisage two lines going to Gateacre. What is the point of getting off and on to another train when it can just carry on to / from Southport, you do not need a separate service. Just need the Network Rail to resignal the CLC line in due course, demolish the HX Control Box and the trackbed is then free to reach Gateacre. Then the problems commence, funding for starters!

According to my notes, Wapping Tunnel is partially backfilled between the Saint James Street and Cornwallis Street and then flooded to Nelson Street.

It is backfilled to about half the height of the tunnel along with two of the three short tunnels that head to Park Street side of the tunnels. The location were the Signal Box was, is large mounds of soil etc. It was used for the promotion of the Land Rover Discovery were as far as I am aware Liverpool CC allowed them to do that (as in build the mounds)!

 

[CaramellDansen]

Simply the Northern Line just carries on to Gateacre

That would be fine at first... until the rest of the line up to Aintree is built, which would merit a separate service.
We've all been over the "any train that isn't an express service to Town should be dismissed" nonsense, so let's not retread that.
I've already said, and care to repeat no more, that A) there should be a separate suburban service down the Extension line, and B) this suburban line and the Northern line should both meet at South Parkway (the interchange opportunities for both are too great to ignore. I don't understand the obsession with extending everything off the Northern line, as if Scousers are too thick or lazy to make one platform change on their journey if they live far out of the city's centre or something.

What is the point of getting off and on to another train

What's the point of making a bizarre, confusing, overly long (assuming we get to Aintree), unplanned, backwards-J shaped line that loops itself into its own branch lines like a railway ouroboros from a transit designer's nightmare? You haven't justified this outside of "not needing" the alternative; ignoring the benefits of the alternative, the systemic issues and, of course, passenger confusion with such a meandering, back-tracking, spiral line.
This is not to mention that (assuming you only want to extend by 1 or 2 stations) going to Gateacre only is incredibly insufficient, especially given how far the city has expanded and how congested our streets are because only the centre and north of the city have decent metro coverage. 2 miles of track and two stations isn't going to fix this problem.

Look at the below image and tell me: if your plan catching approximately the area in yellow (as a liberal estimate of a 2km catchment area) is really sufficient, what is everyone in the orange area supposed to do, except drive? Liverpool is in dire need of suburban connections in the east and south. This isn't a maybe, this is a fact.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseytram was supposed to provide for a reasonably sized chunk of that area, was it not? (It was undersold because people were thinking it was just another way of getting to Kirkby, but that's like saying Metrolink's Oldham Loop is about getting to Rochdale - neither is true, they are about the places along the way).

 

[CaramellDansen]

Then the problems commence, funding for starters!

If we were in the south, it would happen. It's almost like this classist system is broken and needs replacing!
Oops! If I say any more, I'll get swatted by the censors!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we were in the south, it would happen. It's almost like this classist system is broken and needs replacing!

A common myth. I might agree with you if you said London, but the North West's public transport knocks spots off regional transport in most of the South East. Basically, with a few exceptions, you can go to London and possibly to one other big outer place (Birmingham for one), but if you want to go cross country you're lucky if you even have a bus service, and if you do it'll probably be hourly at best and not run in the evening or Sunday.

When I was growing up I could basically get anywhere in the NW by public transport or at least combining it with my bike. Round here you'd have no chance.

Milton Keynes is roughly the size of the City of Liverpool (so not Sefton etc) and barely has a bus service to speak of.

 

[CaramellDansen]

Merseytram was supposed to provide for a reasonably sized chunk of that area, was it not? (It was undersold because people were thinking it was just another way of getting to Kirkby, but that's like saying Metrolink's Oldham Loop is about getting to Rochdale - neither is true, they are about the places along the way).

Was Merseytram to run along roads, on reserved road-level routes, or along rail alignments (a la Manc trams)?
Anything that isn't segregated from road traffic is honestly a waste when we have a perfectly good rail alignment just sitting there waiting to be used.
In my honest opinion, trams should be used when metros are either impossible/too difficult (which I assume applies to Manc trams) or where a metro's level of traffic cannot be justified (Liverpool's a big boy city, all grown up! Let's not pretend more metro couldn't be justified.)

I might agree with you if you said London, but the North West's public transport knocks spots off regional transport in most of the South East.

I'm certain you could pick many exceptions to any rule. Are you saying class difference in parts of the south (is that better?) doesn't exist, and managed decline was managed by... nobody, and happened by magic? That Beeching's axe hitting so much of the north and such less of parts of the south (trends are not rules) is just a happy accident or a weird statistical quirk? Class exists, and it affects us in noticeable ways across the country. I'd explain how but, again, the censors don't like wrongthink... so I'll let you figure it out yourself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Was Merseytram to run along roads, on reserved road-level routes, or along rail alignments (a la Manc trams)?

Central reservations, I believe. However, because its route was much smaller than going round the Gateacre loop it would still be quicker.

I'm certain you could pick many exceptions to any rule. Are you saying class difference in parts of the south (is that better?) doesn't exist, and managed decline was managed by... nobody, and happened by magic? That Beeching's axe hitting so much of the north and such less of parts of the south (trends are not rules) is just a happy accident or a weird statistical quirk? Class exists, and it affects us in noticeable ways across the country. I'd explain how but, again, the censors don't like wrongthink... so I'll let you figure it out yourself.

Class has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Again, you assume the whole South East is rich and lacks social problems, it's nothing of the sort. For instance, the place with the highest teen pregnancy rate in England is in fact a deprived estate in Bletchley (the Lakes/Water Eaton), or certainly was for a long time. And those people are in a practical sense even poorer because they're living in a place where houses costing under £200K just don't exist, while to rent will cost half your salary.

My old haunt of Aughton Park, or somewhere like Didsbury or Cheadle, is as rich as the nicer bits of MK, to go the other way.

It surprised me that non-London-centric public transport in the SE is so poor until I lived here, but it really is. The NW's web like network makes living without a car totally viable, even if it might be a bit slow and a bit rubbish at times. It's just not here, even if few use them to go to London (which is what most round here consider trains for - it's the car for anything else).

 

[CaramellDansen]

Again, you assume the whole South East is rich and lacks social problems, it's nothing of the sort.

You're putting words in my mouth. Regardless, this is a general trend, not a blanket statement.
"Rich people live in the South (or South East, or Parts Of The South East... whatever makes you happy.)" is very different from "everyone is rich in the South".
Your enthusiasm to attack this strawperson you made of me is admirable, but a waste of time. If you refuse to believe class exists in a class- and property-based economic system (lol), I'd love to hear how you explain why some areas get the riches and the rest don't.

Here's a map of income in the UK. What a coincidence that HS2 stopped about the same place the southern pocket of relatively high income ends!! It must be magic or something

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's really not a conspiracy at all, definitely not a class one.

HS2 is stopping where it is because that bit's already partly been built (if it hadn't I'm sure that too would have been cancelled), and the reason it was started from the London end was that that's where the most congested piece of railway in need of relief is located. 2A on its own would benefit very ilttle, whereas 1 at least relieves the south WCML.

I struggle to see - and I say that as a Scouser by birth who will almost certainly one day return - how Liverpool can progress with the victim mentality it so often seems to profess.

 

[prod_pep]

Regarding a couple of points, in demand terms the New Brighton line could easily be reduced to every 20 minutes with no additional capacity as things stand. The 15-minute interval is generous considering the loads, even in the peaks. There is one genuinely busy PM peak service, leaving Liverpool Central at 17.20, and that's it. I'd be less inclined to argue the West Kirby line could be reduced, although those trains are also quiet off-peak. These routes are nowhere near as busy as any of the Northern Line branches or the Chester line.

The loop still has scope for plenty of additional capacity. As originally built, it was signalled for 36 trains per hour although trains never ran at such frequencies. Since the re-signalling in the 90s, the capacity is less but it accommodates 2-minute headways at present. In short, the Wrexham trains could run around the loop without needing to prune frequencies elsewhere.

 

[CaramellDansen]

I struggle to see how Liverpool can progress with the victim mentality it so often seems to profess.

I see, we just need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, eh? I guess the evidence I posted really was a coincidence! lol what a joke

It's really not a conspiracy at all, definitely not a class one.

Class isn't a conspiracy, in the "conspiracy theory" sense. It's a position of power through private property ownership (or lack thereof) that expresses a common economic interest. Believe whatever lets you sleep well at night as you gaslight and victim-blame the poors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class isn't a conspiracy, in the "conspiracy theory" sense. It's a position of power through private property ownership (or lack thereof) that expresses a common economic interest. Believe whatever lets you sleep well at night as you gaslight and victim-blame the poors.

Far, far easier to own property on Merseyside than in the South East as it's massively cheaper. I didn't buy here until I was 31, if I'd stayed on Merseyside and done a similar job I'd almost certainly have bought a few years out of uni, mid 20s at latest.

So yes, I think this is the typical victim mentality that holds back Merseyside, yes - curiously a mentality that seems absent in other parts of the North that seem to do better e.g. Manchester and Leeds.

Indeed if Liverpool could get over it and work with Manchester (accepting that it would mean Liverpool played second place), both would do far better on the national and world stage, massively so. Imagine that whole conurbation working together under one local Government and transport management structure, more like the West Midlands where Wolves and Cov gain wealth from Birmingham rather than being upset at being second fiddle to it. That'd likely help bring the benefits of frequent, capacious electric rail services away from just a couple of lines out of Liverpool (and certainly Manchester is second fiddle when it comes to local rail - outside of London Merseyrail is about as good as it gets, only Glasgow seems to have a similar setup)

 

[8A Rail]

That would be fine at first... until the rest of the line up to Aintree is built, which would merit a separate service.
We've all been over the "any train that isn't an express service to Town should be dismissed" nonsense, so let's not retread that.
I've already said, and care to repeat no more, that A) there should be a separate suburban service down the Extension line, and B) this suburban line and the Northern line should both meet at South Parkway (the interchange opportunities for both are too great to ignore. I don't understand the obsession with extending everything off the Northern line, as if Scousers are too thick or lazy to make one platform change on their journey if they live far out of the city's centre or something.

What's the point of making a bizarre, confusing, overly long (assuming we get to Aintree), unplanned, backwards-J shaped line that loops itself into its own branch lines like a railway ouroboros from a transit designer's nightmare? You haven't justified this outside of "not needing" the alternative; ignoring the benefits of the alternative, the systemic issues and, of course, passenger confusion with such a meandering, back-tracking, spiral line.
This is not to mention that (assuming you only want to extend by 1 or 2 stations) going to Gateacre only is incredibly insufficient, especially given how far the city has expanded and how congested our streets are because only the centre and north of the city have decent metro coverage. 2 miles of track and two stations isn't going to fix this problem.

Look at the below image and tell me: if your plan catching approximately the area in yellow (as a liberal estimate of a 2km catchment area) is really sufficient, what is everyone in the orange area supposed to do, except drive? Liverpool is in dire need of suburban connections in the east and south. This isn't a maybe, this is a fact.

Unless you get to Gateacre first, then you are not going to get to anywhere else, that is a simple fact but you seem to overlook that. The prime purpose of a station at Gateacre is because of the large catchment area (which includes Netherley) for people primarily who are wishing to travel to Liverpool City Centre not Knotty Ash, West Derby, or Aintree (you have an electric bus to do that). Is it a 'doable' shorter option (funding permitted) and one that would I think succeed. You certainly do not want buffer stops on both platforms three and four at Hunts Cross Station, it is crazy notion I'm afraid for practicable and operational reasons. Consequently you don't need to change anything at Liverpool South Parkway station, as the interchange is still there for a through train. Likewise the train operator may prefer to have a train to operate the complete circuit too, it is called making the most of the train stock and staff available and as well as passengers would prefer it too, which is want you want in the first place. If Gateacre ever gets off the ground, then you could think about going further but unless that happens, then it remains a dream.

All I want is a half hourly service on the Liverpool & Manchester line which serve Whiston, Rainhill, Lea Green, St Helens Junction and Earlestown yet the stations, infrastructure, the trains, the staff and passengers are there to warrant that service but it is like asking for the crown jewels! That is an easy fix compared what you would wish and I also would use my car less too, which is the point you are attempting to make!

 

[Djgr]

Regarding a couple of points, in demand terms the New Brighton line could easily be reduced to every 20 minutes with no additional capacity as things stand. The 15-minute interval is generous considering the loads, even in the peaks. There is one genuinely busy PM peak service, leaving Liverpool Central at 17.20, and that's it. I'd be less inclined to argue the West Kirby line could be reduced, although those trains are also quiet off-peak. These routes are nowhere near as busy as any of the Northern Line branches or the Chester line.

The loop still has scope for plenty of additional capacity. As originally built, it was signalled for 36 trains per hour although trains never ran at such frequencies. Since the re-signalling in the 90s, the capacity is less but it accommodates 2-minute headways at present. In short, the Wrexham trains could run around the loop without needing to prune frequencies elsewhere.

That's nice to know. It would be very awkward running New Brighton at every 20 mins and West Kirby at every 15 mins. I think "every 15" is important because it essentially means "turn up and go".

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's nice to know. It would be very awkward running New Brighton at every 20 mins and West Kirby at every 15 mins. I think "every 15" is important because it essentially means "turn up and go".

It's probably more awkward to path a 3tph service as well. In essence you have to choose between intervals of 5/15/30/60/120 or 5/10/20/60/120 if designing a proper connectional timetable. You can't really do both.

 

[Djgr]

Far, far easier to own property on Merseyside than in the South East as it's massively cheaper. I didn't buy here until I was 31, if I'd stayed on Merseyside and done a similar job I'd almost certainly have bought a few years out of uni, mid 20s at latest.

So yes, I think this is the typical victim mentality that holds back Merseyside, yes - curiously a mentality that seems absent in other parts of the North that seem to do better e.g. Manchester and Leeds.

Indeed if Liverpool could get over it and work with Manchester (accepting that it would mean Liverpool played second place), both would do far better on the national and world stage, massively so. Imagine that whole conurbation working together under one local Government and transport management structure, more like the West Midlands where Wolves and Cov gain wealth from Birmingham rather than being upset at being second fiddle to it. That'd likely help bring the benefits of frequent, capacious electric rail services away from just a couple of lines out of Liverpool (and certainly Manchester is second fiddle when it comes to local rail - outside of London Merseyrail is about as good as it gets, only Glasgow seems to have a similar setup)

I'm sure that you know what "Doing a Cilla" means and it's not a complement. There are many people who have stayed and worked hard to improve Liverpool as a city and a region, even at the expense of their career and we don't need lectures about victim mentality thank you.

 

[OutdoorM]

Regarding a couple of points, in demand terms the New Brighton line could easily be reduced to every 20 minutes with no additional capacity as things stand. The 15-minute interval is generous considering the loads, even in the peaks. There is one genuinely busy PM peak service, leaving Liverpool Central at 17.20, and that's it. I'd be less inclined to argue the West Kirby line could be reduced, although those trains are also quiet off-peak. These routes are nowhere near as busy as any of the Northern Line branches or the Chester line.

The loop still has scope for plenty of additional capacity. As originally built, it was signalled for 36 trains per hour although trains never ran at such frequencies. Since the re-signalling in the 90s, the capacity is less but it accommodates 2-minute headways at present. In short, the Wrexham trains could run around the loop without needing to prune frequencies elsewhere.

I believe that the initial plan was to have high capacity on the loop, it was for that reason that the dive under was built at Hamilton Square - to ensure that there was not congestion caused by the returning new Brighton and West Kirby trains.

As such, there should easily be enough capacity to introduce 2tph towards Wrexham

 

[CaramellDansen]

Unless you get to Gateacre first, then you are not going to get to anywhere else, that is a simple fact but you seem to overlook that. [...] Is it a 'doable' shorter option (funding permitted) and one that would I think succeed.

Yeah, I said I agree. That's what "at first" means.

The prime purpose of a station at Gateacre is because of the large catchment area (which includes Netherley) for people primarily who are wishing to travel to Liverpool City Centre not Knotty Ash, West Derby, or Aintree (you have an electric bus to do that).

The point of the line is to get people to transfer stations like Broadgreen, Aintree and South Parkway. More of this "if the line doesn't go directly to Central with no stops in-between, then no-one will EVER use it" nonsense... I'm yet to hear a good argument as to why Scousers can't make one interchange on a journey, or why people there deserve to have no choice other than cars because we aren't bulldozing houses or digging behemoth tunnels to bee-line them to Town.

That is an easy fix compared what you would wish and I also would use my car less too, which is the point you are attempting to make!

That still leaves a lot of people in that orange area, ignoring how cramped both the trains and the tracks would be at rush hour, as opposed to the fully segregated route of the Extension line!

You certainly do not want buffer stops on both platforms three and four at Hunts Cross Station

Not once did I ask for this. In fact, I have not even mentioned buffers once, and I've advocated for a South Parkway dual terminus instead.

Consequently you don't need to change anything at Liverpool South Parkway station, as the interchange is still there for a through train. Likewise the train operator may prefer to have a train to operate the complete circuit too, it is called making the most of the train stock and staff available and as well as passengers would prefer it too, which is want you want in the first place.

Yeah, you're right. Not only do I want that, I've been literally begging and pleading for it in this thread.

If Gateacre ever gets off the ground, then you could think about going further but unless that happens, then it remains a dream.

That's the point of a PLAN.
If we say "let's get to Gateacre", they can take their time and waste all of the money (on CEOs' yachts) and then cancel halfway through.
If we say "let's finish the whole line, all the way to Aintree, X electrified miles per year" not only do they have a goal to meet but it's spread out over a reasonable time so service can be ran further as the track progresses, and running services can raise further funds.
Saying "it would be hard so don't even think about it" is a perfect recipe to get the broken, battered, destroyed and defiled railways of modern Britain.

Far, far easier to own property on Merseyside than in the South East

I said PRIVATE property, not residential property.
Factories, machines, arable land... Things that extract value from others' labour.

I think this is the typical victim mentality that holds back Merseyside
if Liverpool could get over it

Right, we need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. The audacity of someone from Aughton bloody Park to lecture someone who was born on a council estate that people are only poor because of their mindset. What is this, the 1880's?!
Thanks for your input, for all it was worth...

 

[urbophile]

The point of the line is to get people to transfer stations like Broadgreen, Aintree and South Parkway. More of this "if the line doesn't go directly to Central with no stops in-between, then no-one will EVER use it" nonsense... I'm yet to hear a good argument as to why Scousers can't make one interchange on a journey, or why people there deserve to have no choice other than cars because we aren't bulldozing houses or digging behemoth tunnels to bee-line them to Town.

The problem about relying on connections is that you can't. It's OK on the Tube in central London where people will put up with walking miles along subterranean corridors because they know another train will turn up within a minute or two. It would be different in the suburbs (London Overground is better than its predecessors but you may still have to wait 15 minutes or more). Those eastern suburbs of Liverpool definitely need good connections, but the routes need to go where people need to go. It would be good if people were happy to wait on a draughty platform (or even a heated waiting room) instead of getting on with their journey, but I doubt if that's how they will see it. Your idea of a peripheral route with connections is a good one in theory, but will it persuade politicians to invest or the public to travel? I doubt it.

 

[CaramellDansen]

The problem about relying on connections is that you can't. It's OK on the Tube in central London where people will put up with walking miles along subterranean corridors because they know another train will turn up within a minute or two. It would be different in the suburbs (London Overground is better than its predecessors but you may still have to wait 15 minutes or more). Those eastern suburbs of Liverpool definitely need good connections, but the routes need to go where people need to go. It would be good if people were happy to wait on a draughty platform (or even a heated waiting room) instead of getting on with their journey, but I doubt if that's how they will see it. Your idea of a peripheral route with connections is a good one in theory, but will it persuade politicians to invest or the public to travel? I doubt it.

People only ever want to go to Town? Nonsense. People want to go everywhere. They want to go to Aintree, and Manchester, and anywhere. That's why we run railways there.

I don't see the logic in having a power changeover at Hunts Cross and going back on yourself back towards Aintree, just to come all the way back on yourself again to then begin your journey towards Town from Hunts Cross after another power changeover. Because of how the line works, that awkwardly makes it less likely for people to interchange at Aintree or Broadgreen when they have the promise of a "direct" route (i.e. no interchanges) despite it taking a much more circuitous route! Ignoring how confusing the map would start being for passengers, you're also going to get the lower service levels of the line (than the main route through Town) making the corporation cut back services at Hunts Cross, making it even more confusing for passengers ("this is the right direction, but does this go to my house? how do I know?"). I don't understand why we need to deal with all these issues you're introducing just because "you can only interchange in London". Such strange hills to die on.

 

[Bevan Price]

Unless you get to Gateacre first, then you are not going to get to anywhere else, that is a simple fact but you seem to overlook that. The prime purpose of a station at Gateacre is because of the large catchment area (which includes Netherley) for people primarily who are wishing to travel to Liverpool City Centre not Knotty Ash, West Derby, or Aintree (you have an electric bus to do that). Is it a 'doable' shorter option (funding permitted) and one that would I think succeed. You certainly do not want buffer stops on both platforms three and four at Hunts Cross Station, it is crazy notion I'm afraid for practicable and operational reasons. Consequently you don't need to change anything at Liverpool South Parkway station, as the interchange is still there for a through train. Likewise the train operator may prefer to have a train to operate the complete circuit too, it is called making the most of the train stock and staff available and as well as passengers would prefer it too, which is want you want in the first place. If Gateacre ever gets off the ground, then you could think about going further but unless that happens, then it remains a dream.

All I want is a half hourly service on the Liverpool & Manchester line which serve Whiston, Rainhill, Lea Green, St Helens Junction and Earlestown yet the stations, infrastructure, the trains, the staff and passengers are there to warrant that service but it is like asking for the crown jewels! That is an easy fix compared what you would wish and I also would use my car less too, which is the point you are attempting to make!

Agree that we need an improved local service between Lime Street and Earlestow, preferably with the second train per hour continuing al least to Manchester (Victoria). The present hourly service is inadequate, and all too often has 2-3 hour gaps when Northern cancels services.

Some people need to remember that lines closed - even before Beeching - because not enough people used them. One such line was the CLC line beyond Gateacre to Aintree (and originally Southport Lord St.) . Relatively few people want to travel around the "rim" of Liverpool - the only major "target" is the city centre, and the journey time from most CLC Loop stations was too long to be attractive. Also, the location of some of the stations was less than ideal relative to where people lived (e.g. Knotty Ash, even West Derby) . Implementing dreams is expensive, and uses money that is not going to be available. Will people vote for a city region mayor who wants big increases in council tax to pay for grandiose schemes ?