We recognise the tone of this article isn't up the standard we aspire to, being unnecessarily combative in places - we've left it up unchanged though, as this is what we posted at the time.

The news about funding for a new train station on Headbolt Lane in Kirkby is welcome.  But there are two big problems with the plans.

The new station will provide easy access for people living in the Towerhill/Shevington and Northwood areas of Kirkby, putting a train station within 20 minutes walking distance for the majority of Kirkby residents.  It will also extend the Merseyrail network, and bring us a step closer to restoring the Kirkby line as a through-route, and the benefits that will bring in terms of services.  But the current plans for the station fly in the face of these two facts.

Firstly, the plans include 300 car parking spaces when it isn’t clear who will use them, whilst destroying a pleasant greenspace in the process. Secondly, the plans are for an end-to-end terminal station, like we currently have at Kirkby, and isn’t putting in place the infrastructure for Headbolt Station to become a through route.

So, are the current plans going to be “Rotheram’s Folly”?

300 car parking spaces!

Considering the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s (LCR-CA) desire to pursue a green agenda, it was more than a bit of a surprise to hear that initially the plans were talking of around 500 car parking spaces.  When we first heard about this in mid-2020 we contacted the LCR-CA to try to understand the motivation for this plan. Since then, the target number of spaces has come down to 300, with an additional 200 spaces planned for, as shown in the environmental impact assessment report from the planning application.

We were advised that the intention was to provide a park and ride facility, and that the number of spaces was being driven by the experience with Birkenhead North train station, which was initially undersupplied with spaces.  But there is a big difference between Headbolt and Birkenhead North.

Birkenhead North appears to serve a much larger area covering the whole southern part of Wallasey, as well as a large swathe of Birkenhead itself. Birkenhead alone has a population almost double that of Kirkby, whilst Wallasey is about 1/3 bigger than Kirkby, and other nearby towns such as Saughall Massie, Woodchurch, Frankby and Greasby are not immediately served by e.g. the West Kirby line. There also appears to be a severe lack of car parking spaces at the existing train stations of Birkenhead Central, Birkenhead Park, Conway Park, Hamilton Square, Rock Ferry, Wallasey Village and Upton. It is no wonder the car parking at Birkenhead North was not enough.

At the current Kirkby train station, whilst car parking demand outstrips supply, it isn’t by much.  On a regular working day (who remembers those, eh?), the main car park and the overflow car park at Kirkby Train Station are full – some 174 parking spaces – with some commuters parking on nearby streets, but this is a small number of additional cars.  It is also worth remembering that many of these people live in Towerhill/Shevington and Northwood, and will now be within 20 minutes walking distance of the new Headbolt train station.  So, the overall demand for car parking spaces by people living in Kirkby is likely to go down and not up.  If suitable walking, cycling and bus routes can be put in place, this demand can be further reduced, supporting people’s health & fitness, reducing traffic and air pollution from short car journeys.

From publicity around these announcements, and our own email interactions with LCR-CA, it seems that Headbolt Station is being viewed as a park-and-ride site to reduce the number of vehicles entering the city centre.  At first it seems rather unfair for Kirkby to be saddled with a large car park for people outside of Kirkby to use, adding vehicles to Kirkby’s roads.  However, we quickly realised that it is difficult to see where these people are going to come from.

If we look at all the surrounding towns and villages we can conclude:

• Maghull to the north is already well-served by 2 train stations;
• Aintree and Fazakerley to the west are already well-served by 5 train stations;
• Croxteth and the northern parts of Huyton/Stockbridge Village to the south are not served by train stations but it would take a non-trivial car journey along already congested roads in the wrong direction (e.g. the very busy East Lancashire Road) to get to Kirkby or Headbolt Stations;
• Beyond that, Kirkby does not seem to be a logical park and ride site for anyone living in Sefton, St Helens, Halton, the south of Knowsley, or anywhere in the City of Liverpool;
• Ormskirk, Augton Park and Town Green to the north are already served by 3 train stations;
• Rainford is already the next stop along on the line from Kirkby;
• Skelmersdale is served by Upholland Station until such time as aspirations for a station in Skelmersdale town centre can be realised.

So who is going to drive to Kirkby to get the train into Liverpool?

In yet another own-goal from Cllr Tony Brennan, cabinet member for regeneration and economic development, he is quoted in the press releases as saying:

“I welcome this additional funding to bring this important scheme forward.  It will significantly improve transport choices for our residents as well as improve access to Knowsley Business Park – one of the largest employment sites in Europe – and other key services, particularly in the Northwood and Towerhill areas of Kirkby. I look forward to seeing this project progress.”

Except, the new Headbolt Station will only provide a marginal improvement in accessing Kirkby Industrial Estate (promoted as Knowsley Business Park).  Firstly, the distance by road from the new station to the south of Kirkby Industrial Estate is about the same as from Kirkby Station, and so there is no improvement for someone arriving and taking a taxi or the bus.  The situation is better for accessing the northern end of the industrial estate by taxi going via North Perimeter Road (shorter by 1.5 km), but there is no bus service taking this route.  It is quicker to walk/cycle to the northern end of the industrial estate, through Northwood along Brook Hey Drive, and along the path between the Eddie McArdle playing Fields and Liverpool FC’s training ground, but there is no mention of improving these routes, much of which are poorly maintened non-designated cycling routes.

Finally, the building of these car parking spaces will destroy an otherwise pleasant greenspace in the heart of our town.  This greenspace links with Mill Farm and Millbrook Park Millennium Green to the southwest, and Northwood Forest Hills to the northeast.  It would turn land which currently aids with flood prevention – an area which has recently been subject to localised flooding over winter – into more tarmac and concrete, and further increasing the growing flood risk in Kirkby. (see: https://riverlevels.uk/alt-aintree-kirkby#.YGc7uehKgdU)

And so, we question whether there is any sound basis for building 300 car parking spaces and urge Knowsley Council, the LCR-CA and Network Rail to reconsider their approach to designing the new station.  A simpler, cheaper approach would be to keep the new station and car parking to the area south of the stream that runs through the valley, and leave the northern side of the valley as welcoming greenspace.

2 lines good, 3 platforms bad?

The stated aim of the LCR-CA is to extend the Merseyrail line from Kirkby at least as far as a new station in the heart of Skelmersdale.  This sounds like a great plan which would benefit Skelmersdale, Kirkby and the Liverpool City Region.  But if this is the aim, why is the new station being built as a 3-platform terminal station, rather than as the 2-platform through-station they intend for it to become?

It seems quite clear from recent survey work that has been observed, and from the environmental impact assessment report from the planning application, that the line between Kirkby and Headbolt will be restored to its original 2-line configuration and be electrified to support Merseyrail third-rail trains.  This clearly seems to include adding an additional span to the railway bridge over County Road, however there is no indication at this stage that the single-track bridge over the M57 motorway will be widened, or what the plans are for the line between Headbolt and Rainford.  The major constraint with the latter is the road bridge over Dale Lane near the junction with Pingwood Lane and Headbolt Lane, which may or may not already be wide enough for two tracks.  If it isn’t wide enough, then it would be a major project to widen it, or the track would have to remain singletrack between Headbolt and Rainford, a distance of 6 km.  We call on Knowsley Council, the LCR-CA and Network Rail to clarify these plans.

We have created this map to document some of our own observations about the local rail network and barriers to a two-track line through Kirkby.

No matter what the plans for the lines east of Headbolt and west of Kirkby, the aim seems to be for Headbolt to become a through station, with trains eventually going at least as far as Skelmersdale on an extended Merseyrail network. The design outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment sets out a 3-platform arrangement which includes a section of platform between the two sides of the doubletrack line towards Kirkby, and the single track line towards Rainford.  Building the station in this configuration seems short-sighted, as a through-station will need a pedestrian bridge and lifts to avoid a level-crossing over the tracks, and the third platform would be entirely redundant.  Extension of the Merseyrail line to Skelmersdale would require a costly refitting of the station to remove the third platform and install a crossing bridge, stairs and lifts.  This would not only be disruptive to an operational station, but it would also be a waste of public funds.

Perhaps the most bizarre element of all this is the complete lack of mention of the Rail Waste Transfer Station off Woodward Road on the industrial estate.  Merseyside’s household waste is loaded into supposedly sealed containers on a freight train, and this is then transported to Teeside to be incinerated in an energy-from-waste plant.  The train reverses out of the waste transfer station and the siding ends where the buffers are for the new Headbolt Station, with the new platform parallel to it.  Anyone who has had the misfortune of crossing over the top of the Towerhill-Northwood bridge can when this train is in the siding can testify to how overpowering the smell is – enough to to trigger the gag reflex.  The idea that passengers could be waiting alongside the train of stench is enough to turn our stomachs…

Headbolt Station should be built to meet the long-term need now, avoid wasting public funds and avoid exposing passengers to the stench of Merseyside’s household waste!

Include a shop and cafe

Unlike Kirkby Train Station, which is very close to a set of shops on Glovers Brow, Headbolt Station is fairly distant from the nearest shops on Loweswater Way and the cornershop on Stretford Close.  Consideration should be given to building a shop and/or cafe as part of the new station to support travellers, as well as people visiting Kirkby. This could help encourage visitors to our parks, greenspaces and cycle paths.

Neglected underpass

Part of the proposals for the new station include ‘level-access’ throughout the station, and the blocking up of the underpass beneath Headbolt Lane which leads to Southcroft Drive. The underpass is undoubtedly in a terrible state, but that is due to years of neglect. Graffiti and fire damage has been left, lighting is long since broken, and the street lighting along the path is either not working (on the northern side of the underpass) or has been removed (from the greenspace to the south).

Whilst level-access is important for some, this doesn’t mean the underpass needs blocking up. It provides the direct access to the path that runs through the valley used by people out for a walk, including with dogs, and is an important route from Towerhill to County Road. The path leads north into Towerhill, and with a bit of joined up planning, this could connect with a network of paths running throughout Towerhill and up to Shevington Lane that would encourage pedestrian and cycling access to the new station. This underpass and route should be improved, not abandoned.

Sustainable transport and a welcoming sight

Instead of building too many unnecessary car parking spaces, building platforms that aren’t ready for the future, and destroying greenspace, we propose that:

• Far fewer car parking space be provided, limited to disabled parking, staff parking and a few dozen spaces for other car users;
• Investment is made in local footpaths and cycle paths to enable local residents to easily make the journey to the station;
• Investment is made in local bus services throughout Towerhill/Shevington and Northwood to provide regular connections with the station;
• The station be built as a two-platform through station now to avoid future disruptive and costly refit work, and prevent passengers being exposed to the stench from the household waste goods trains;
• The station to include a shop and/or cafe to support travellers as the nearest shops are some distance away;
• The green space north of the river be retained, and the walk through the valley be improved, providing a welcoming arrival to Kirkby at Headbolt Station.

This would turn a plan for a bleak concrete and tarmac construction into a welcoming and attractive view into Kirkby’s greenspace, encouraging people to come to Kirkby to explore Kirkby, and not just to park. Here’s our outline counter-proposal:

Kirkby might be close to Steve Rotheram’s heart, but that isn’t apparently enough to stop him carrying on with a bad set of plans.  Please Steve, make good use of this money, and don’t build a folly!