We need High speed Rail, but Is HS2 really Needed?

[matacaster]

HS2's problem is that it's too short. It should be extended to Glasgow & Edinburgh.

The logical solution would ONE route north and through trains between Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, they will likely get neither as both cities want to be top dog and feel an extra 30 minutes or so would be an affront to their verility.

 

[tbtc]

A bit faster? Come off it mate. The Leeds-Birmingham journey time drops to under an hour. Leeds - East Midlands in about 30 minutes.

If you look at the population distribution of the UK the HS2 network connects the main centres over the 'trunk' of England in a reasonably efficient configuration. The missing part is a transpennine connection, for which plans are being developed.

Criticism is easy, but I notice you have given no details of YOUR idea of a national network. If you can't actually spell out a better alternative I'd suggest your criticism is misplaced.

Agreed - easy to criticise the HS2 plans, but what realistic alternatives are there for the first stage of building something?

I mean, we could just glibly say "electrify everything, increase all trains to maximum length, remove bottlenecks and upgrade routes", but the reason HS2 is happening is *because* upgrading existing routes is so complicated/ expensive/ time-consuming.

The only real possible routes for HS2 would be either the planned one or the previous idea of running "Leeds via Manchester" (which ticks the trans-pennine box, but means Leeds - Birmingham/ London would take a good bit longer).

This is only the first route though - we seem stuck in a situation where people complain that HS2 costs so much and that HS2 doesn't go far enough. But we don't have this on other threads - nobody is complaining that the electrification to Blackpool isn't helping passengers from Ipswich to Hastings - nobody is complaining that the Ordsall Chord hasn't cut journey times between Aberdeen and Inverness - yet it's so easy (simplistic?) for people to moan that HS2 isn't solving every single problem. It's only the first part of a network - can't build everything at once.

the current hourly service from Leeds to Birmingham is inadequate but the existing line is already busy serving commuter as well as long distance passengers, so what's to be done? A short term solution would be to run longer trains - you could do that with no new infrastructure. I imagine you could also shave a few minutes here and there with some infrastructure interventions. Maybe you could even get the journey time down to 1hr40, who knows. But longer term you've got to build new track to create substantially more capacity and no amount of small scale tinkering is going to cut it compared to a brand new line that gets the journey done in under an hour.

Yes!

That's a criticism I have of HS2. There doesn't seem to be any facility for direct onward journeys to the southwest from Birmingham.

I'm hoping that this is one of those out-of-scope things that HS2 are trying to get someone else to pay for (like links to "NPR" at Manchester) - if you can make it someone else's responsibility then the cost will come out of someone else's budget - classic project management - I'm sure it'll happen but the HS2 people seem very keen on delivering a strictly defined network so that they don't get lumbered with lots of associated costs for other routes.

Because I look at railways in their broader social and economic context, rather than just as a way of getting around, or a big shiny real-life trainset, I cannot be as blasé as you about the comparative economic advantages that differing HS2 journey times, service frequency and connectivity levels bring about. A reduction in London-Liverpool journey times is frankly sod all use when a city up the road is going to be 30 minutes per leg of journey closer to London, and 45 minutes per leg closer to Birmingham. It has already been said, on reasonably good authority, that Channel 4 has not shortlisted Liverpool for one of its new bases because other cities will have better connectivity post-HS2. This reflects the KPMG report, only diclosed after a FoI request, which showed that, uniquely among cities 'served' by HS2, Liverpool would potentially suffer economic shrinkage as a result of it.

I don't think it's being 'obsessed' to criticise a transport project which potentially does this sort of damage to the city you live and work in, and I'm tired of the lazy clichés applied by some on here to those of us who question the railway establishment's way of doing things.

If it were down to me, I'd like to see new railways blanketing Britain, and a colossal modal shift away from private road transport and on to rail. However, if we muat remain within current spending constraints, I feel that we could build a much better value railway network, with a far greater geographic spread of benefits, if we could avoid throwing all our eggs in the basket of a single line which benefits only a select handful of places

So you don't like HS2 because it will benefit Manchester and make Manchester a more attractive place?

Fair enough - I appreciate your honesty.

But (aside from the nice words about the broader social and economic context) how do you plan to deliver more with the kind of budgets we are talking about?

Look at how complicated/ expensive/ time-consuming it's been to upgrade the GWML. Remember the WCML upgrade fifteen years ago? How are you going to build into the heart of all of the big cities (since you are obviously dismissive of "an obscure suburb of Nottingham")? How is your plan going to link Bradford, Southampton, Plymouth and Liverpool, within the constraints of the current situation?

I'd like what you are selling, but it's going to be the equivalent of HS2 + HS3 + HS4 + HS5... maybe we could get on with linking the most important cities first and then look at delivering schemes that benefit secondary places?

 

[keith1879]

I look forward to the response to the suggestion that Liverpool is secondary .......

 

[keith1879]

There is a serious point though. It's probably easier (and I haven't tried it) to make a case for investing in better transport links for Manchester because there are more people within x miles of the city centre ...... but that could be a vicious circle for Liverpool and the Wirral as better links make Manchester ever more attractive and prosperous. Given where we are I would imagine that the key thing for Merseyside is to be going all out to benefit from the extra capacity on the "classic" route. I live in Stockport ....so obviously I am keen to see Merseyside do well.

 

[B&I]

There is a serious point though. It's probably easier (and I haven't tried it) to make a case for investing in better transport links for Manchester because there are more people within x miles of the city centre ...... but that could be a vicious circle for Liverpool and the Wirral as better links make Manchester ever more attractive and prosperous. Given where we are I would imagine that the key thing for Merseyside is to be going all out to benefit from the extra capacity on the "classic" route. I live in Stockport ....so obviously I am keen to see Merseyside do well.

Well exactly, although depending what definition you use, the Liverpool conurbation has either a bit under or a bit over 2 million people, and is the 5th biggest metropolitan area in England:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

Well worth serving, I'd suggest, when all it would take would be another 20 miles of track. (I'd say the same if I didn't live there, which is why I've pointed out that other large cities are being idiotically left off the network, most obviously Bradford which could be served with a simple extension of Leeds services.)

Still, now that HS2 Limited Has Spoken, that's it as far as a lot of people on here are concerned.

 

[Ianno87]

Well exactly, although depending what definition you use, the Liverpool conurbation has either a bit under or a bit over 2 million people, and is the 5th biggest metropolitan area in England:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

Well worth serving, I'd suggest, when all it would take would be another 20 miles of track. (I'd say the same if I didn't live there, which is why I've pointed out that other large cities are being idiotically left off the network, most obviously Bradford which could be served with a simple extension of Leeds services.)

Still, now that HS2 Limited Has Spoken, that's it as far as a lot of people on here are concerned.

*Sigh*.

Liverpool is served by HS2 trains that join HS2 infrastructure at Crewe.

Oh, and serving Bradford is anything but 'simple' - the HS2 platforms at Leeds aren't connected to anything. It's hardly like there's a frequent service on two routes to get Bradfordians to a Leeds, is there?

 

[The Ham]

The only place they could sensibly single-change to a train to OOC is Reading though*, unless the HEx to Woking happens. As such, the direct services will be as-rammed south of Reading, and frequencies would remain the same 1.5 tph northward. There's benefits, but they are tenuous and limited.

The XC services aren't as busy South of Reading as they are North of it. You also have the stopping services between Reading and Basingstoke, which are no good if there'sa XC service that half hour, but if there's not they'll get you back faster, effectively making it 2tph.

Yes you would need to change at Reading and OOC, but the frequency between those two will be good, with a reasonable wait time rather than a 3:30 journey time from Basingstoke to Manchester it would be about 2:30.

That's still circa 1 hour faster which isn't too bad (and that's based on adding the Basingstoke to Paddington time to the Heathrow to Manchester time to allow for a wait at two stations).

Although people do like direct services a service which is an hour faster, with two changes, will attract a number of people. Especially given that HS2 will connect better with the Scottish Cities than XC through Reading does.

Yes the benefits aren't as big as Birmingham-Leeds but they are still noticeable and there.

As I said there's other cities which would also benefit and i was just giving Southampton as one of the odder ones to suggest which will have some benefits. In that if it has benefits then plenty of other places will also benefit.

 

[B&I]

*Sigh*.

Liverpool is served by HS2 trains that join HS2 infrastructure at Crewe.

Oh, and serving Bradford is anything but 'simple' - the HS2 platforms at Leeds aren't connected to anything. It's hardly like there's a frequent service on two routes to get Bradfordians to a Leeds, is there?

It's clear I'm not getting my message across, so I'll repeat it again.

You are a prospective investor in the north of England. Connectivity to London and Birmingham is a major factor in your investment decisions. Do you invest in the city with faster and more frequent connections, or the city with slower and less frequent ones ?

What I cannot fathom is why certain people on here seem so determined to ignore the real-life implications of decisions about certain railway infrastructure, then claim not to understand when other people do not share their enthusiasm for the projects in question.

 

[snowball]

What I cannot fathom is why certain people on here seem so determined to ignore the real-life implications of decisions about certain railway infrastructure, then claim not to understand when other people do not share their enthusiasm for the projects in question.

Because if your point of view was applied uniformly, nothing would ever be built anywhere, because each project can only benefit a limited number of places, and you would insist on seeing that as damaging to other places.

 

[The Ham]

Because if your point of view was applied uniformly, nothing would ever be built anywhere, because each project can only benefit a limited number of places, and you would insist on seeing that as damaging to other places.

Quite, there's been enough complaints about how the HS2 business case was built on unknown numbers which were probably over inflated. If you work on the assumption that there's going to be HS3 next followed by HS4 and HS5 until there's a good network across the whole of the UK, then HS2 is a good start.

Even if this is it, then by linking to and running services to many of the cities in the UK, as well as providing benefits to other cities with regards to travel time for longer distance services then it's probably about as good as you are going to get in one hit.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's clear I'm not getting my message across, so I'll repeat it again.

You are a prospective investor in the north of England. Connectivity to London and Birmingham is a major factor in your investment decisions. Do you invest in the city with faster and more frequent connections, or the city with slower and less frequent ones ?

In economic terms for the U.K., it doesn’t matter. The investment still happens. In this example, were a link to be built to Liverpool the investment still happens. But the country has spent an extra billion or so for the same result.

However there are lots of other examples. You are an existing investor in Merseyside, with customers and business in London. Or vice versa. HS2 will help, no?

Or you are a prospective investor into a major port city. Post HS2 Liverpool looks much more attractive than it does today compared to, for example, Southampton or Hull.

Nevertheless, I think a link to Liverpool will happen.

 

[B&I]

In economic terms for the U.K., it doesn’t matter. The investment still happens. In this example, were a link to be built to Liverpool the investment still happens. But the country has spent an extra billion or so for the same result.

Nevertheless, I think a link to Liverpool will happen.

So, what you're saying is, a metropolitan area of approximately 2 million people.should happily sacrifice its future prospects of attracting many types of investment because the country as a whole will make money out of HS2. Where exactly is the upside for Liverpool's residents in a future acting as collateral.damage for other people's ambitions ?

Perhaps, if so many chunks of the UK hadn't been written off economically on the basis that the UK as a whole was doing alright, Britain would not be as divided and dysfunctional as it is.

 

[B&I]

Because if your point of view was applied uniformly, nothing would ever be built anywhere, because each project can only benefit a limited number of places, and you would insist on seeing that as damaging to other places.

If my point of view was applied universally, more infrastructure would be built in order to benefit more people and more places. I have already said that I would like to see the country blanketed in new railways, and a substantial.modal ahift from road to rail. That's going a lot further than HS2 does

 

[B&I]

Quite, there's been enough complaints about how the HS2 business case was built on unknown numbers which were probably over inflated. If you work on the assumption that there's going to be HS3 next followed by HS4 and HS5 until there's a good network across the whole of the UK, then HS2 is a good start.

Even if this is it, then by linking to and running services to many of the cities in the UK, as well as providing benefits to other cities with regards to travel time for longer distance services then it's probably about as good as you are going to get in one hit.

I would be an awful lot happier if there waa any solid evidence that HS3 was going to happen. As it is, the direction of travel seems to be that we're not even going to electrify across the Pennines. Hence my criticism of the current defects to HS2 - for now, that's all we're getting

 

[The Ham]

If my point of view was applied universally, more infrastructure would be built in order to benefit more people and more places. I have already said that I would like to see the country blanketed in new railways, and a substantial.modal ahift from road to rail. That's going a lot further than HS2 does

The problem is that it is easier to justify an extension to something that already exists.

As an example of we build a new line costing £50 billion and then build a series of extensions costing £25 billion that's more likely to happen than trying to build a £70 billion line in one go.

There's two reasons, first people are less scared of spending money in small amounts and this extends to the government spending that money.

The second is because there's miss trust from people on how many people would use the line. By building in stages it allows the government to show that's demand for it.

While I would like to see the likes of Liverpool on the HS network the extra cost of doing so from day one would make it a harder fight to get any of it built.

 

[B&I]

The problem is that it is easier to justify an extension to something that already exists.

As an example of we build a new line costing £50 billion and then build a series of extensions costing £25 billion that's more likely to happen than trying to build a £70 billion line in one go.

There's two reasons, first people are less scared of spending money in small amounts and this extends to the government spending that money.

The second is because there's miss trust from people on how many people would use the line. By building in stages it allows the government to show that's demand for it.

While I would like to see the likes of Liverpool on the HS network the extra cost of doing so from day one would make it a harder fight to get any of it built.

It's also easier, politically, not to build an extension than it is to can part of an existing.project.

If it is necessary.to build it in phases to prove demand, why not build something like phase 1, spend some money on tacklig the worst pinch points on the existimg network, then complete phase 2 when demand requires it ?

It would be possible to build HS2 to Liverpool, and a number of other places, if the cost of the existing planned phases wasn't so extravagant. There is something deeply wrong with a project which is costing several times per mile its equivalent in other European countries, but no-one is prepared to question that, because they have too much political and personal.capital invested in HS2.

 

[Senex]

It would be possible to build HS2 to Liverpool, and a number of other places, if the cost of the existing planned phases wasn't so extravagant. There is something deeply wrong with a project which is costing several times per mile its equivalent in other European countries, but no-one is prepared to question that, because they have too much political and personal capital invested in HS2.

I haven't seen any recent comparative costs per km for TGV-style two-track infrastructure in various countries and it would be interesting to know them if anyone has the information. However, what is very clear is that costs of construction in France have risen sharply from earlier levels as there has been much more environmentalist interest to be taken into account, and costs in Germany have never been as low as those in France because of denser habitation and a strong environment lobby. Nevertheless, from everything that I have seen, we do seem way out of line with our neighbours. Can it just be all the extra tunnelling to keep the worthy inhabitants of the Chilterns happy, is it a British desire to platinum-plate everything, is it the addition of massive contingency allowances which then inevitably get used up, or what?

 

[B&I]

I haven't seen any recent comparative costs per km for TGV-style two-track infrastructure in various countries and it would be interesting to know them if anyone has the information. However, what is very clear is that costs of construction in France have risen sharply from earlier levels as there has been much more environmentalist interest to be taken into account, and costs in Germany have never been as low as those in France because of denser habitation and a strong environment lobby. Nevertheless, from everything that I have seen, we do seem way out of line with our neighbours. Can it just be all the extra tunnelling to keep the worthy inhabitants of the Chilterns happy, is it a British desire to platinum-plate everything, is it the addition of massive contingency allowances which then inevitably get used up, or what?

I don't know, but what worries me is how few people are even asking these questions

 

[HSTEd]

The proposed station is Birmingham Interchange, the existing station is Birmingham International, (although the Airport has dropped International from its name).
Yes it does sound silly to build a new station for HS2 less than a mile from an existing mainline station. Don't you think the HS2 planners thought that as well? So why did they chose the final (not ideal) plan to have a separate station?

Because if they did that the entire budget for such a reconstruction of the station complex associated with the airport (whatever it's name), and all the approach lines, would be dumped on their budget.

Rebuilding International to take HS2 would have meant that HS2 would meet the Birmingham-Coventry line somewhere near the existing Hampton in Arden station and leaving somewhere near the existing station of Marston Green. Now remember that a high speed line requires (I am told) a minimum radius of 7km so curves both before and definitely after Birmingham International would be required.

That assumes a ~400kph speed limit thrugh the station, which is just silly.
You only need this if you are committed to maintaining only a single alignment, stopping trains can go much slower and those that are not stopping can simply bypass the station, as occurs at Lille Europe and Ashford.

It might be possible to avoid demolition of houses in Hampton in Arden although the line would have to run close to the village. However further north there would be no choice but to plough through the massive Birmingham overspil housing estate of Chelmesley Wood. Also remember that one side of the line is the Airport and the other is the National Exhibition Centre so a land take from them would be inevitable.

We have Tunnel Boring Machines, land take is a political and economic calculation.

A new Birmingham Interchange station then became the inevitable compromise. So could the Birmingham-Coventry line be diverted into this station? Yes but that would take it away from is intended purpose of serving the airport and the NEC.

The purpose of the Birmingham Coventry line is not just to serve the Airport and NEC.

 

[The Ham]

It's also easier, politically, not to build an extension than it is to can part of an existing.project.

If it is necessary.to build it in phases to prove demand, why not build something like phase 1, spend some money on tacklig the worst pinch points on the existimg network, then complete phase 2 when demand requires it ?

It would be possible to build HS2 to Liverpool, and a number of other places, if the cost of the existing planned phases wasn't so extravagant. There is something deeply wrong with a project which is costing several times per mile its equivalent in other European countries, but no-one is prepared to question that, because they have too much political and personal.capital invested in HS2.

One of the major factors impacting the cost of any rail project in the UK is that of house prices.

As not only does it impact directly through land costs, but also through needing to pay staff more to enable them to pay for their housing and all their others costs (which needs to cover other people's housing costs).

 

[gsnedders]

I haven't seen any recent comparative costs per km for TGV-style two-track infrastructure in various countries and it would be interesting to know them if anyone has the information. However, what is very clear is that costs of construction in France have risen sharply from earlier levels as there has been much more environmentalist interest to be taken into account, and costs in Germany have never been as low as those in France because of denser habitation and a strong environment lobby. Nevertheless, from everything that I have seen, we do seem way out of line with our neighbours. Can it just be all the extra tunnelling to keep the worthy inhabitants of the Chilterns happy, is it a British desire to platinum-plate everything, is it the addition of massive contingency allowances which then inevitably get used up, or what?

As far as I'm aware, a significant part of it is the cost of land-take in London and Birmingham, and then the cost of the relatively large amount of tunneling at the southern end. The actual cost per km, excluding land cost, of track in open fields is pretty comparable to elsewhere in Europe.

 

[DavidGrain]

Because if they did that the entire budget for such a reconstruction of the station complex associated with the airport (whatever it's name), and all the approach lines, would be dumped on their budget.

Agreed. That is why I said that it could not be done

That assumes a ~400kph speed limit thrugh the station, which is just silly.
You only need this if you are committed to maintaining only a single alignment, stopping trains can go much slower and those that are not stopping can simply bypass the station, as occurs at Lille Europe and Ashford.

Agreed but the through lines will have to be separated from the stopping lines requiring a greater land take and that would mean taking the land from the Airport one side of the line and the NEC the other side. It would also mean a permanent speed restiction on that part of the line.

We have Tunnel Boring Machines, land take is a political and economic calculation.

I don't have the figures but I assume that tunneling is more expensive that surface

The purpose of the Birmingham Coventry line is not just to serve the Airport and NEC.

Sorry, my wording was not too clear. My intention was to say that the intended purpose of Birmingham International Station was to serve the Airport and the NEC. It also had two other subsidiary purposes which were to provide a overtaking point on the double track Birmingham-Coventry line to allow the increase in the London Birmingham Inter City service to 3tph (which admittedly took a long time in coming) and to replace Hampton in Arden as the 'parkway' (we did not use the term in those days) station for passengers from south of Birmingham to avoid travelling into Birmingham City Centre to catch a London train.

I know this because I discussed the matter with the then chairman of NEC Ltd back in 1976

 

[B&I]

As far as I'm aware, a significant part of it is the cost of land-take in London and Birmingham, and then the cost of the relatively large amount of tunneling at the southern end. The actual cost per km, excluding land cost, of track in open fields is pretty comparable to elsewhere in Europe.

One of the major factors impacting the cost of any rail project in the UK is that of house prices.

As not only does it impact directly through land costs, but also through needing to pay staff more to enable them to pay for their housing and all their others costs (which needs to cover other people's housing costs).

What is the average house price in France or Germany, comparwd to England ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the average house price in France or Germany, comparwd to England ?

Germany is a renting culture, so house prices are not of any significance (and most people rent from housing associations and other large landlords, so the price of housing doesn't drive rents, either). One effect of this is that the workforce is very mobile - if you move jobs, just rent a different flat.

 

[Ianno87]

That assumes a ~400kph speed limit thrugh the station, which is just silly.
You only need this if you are committed to maintaining only a single alignment, stopping trains can go much slower and those that are not stopping can simply bypass the station, as occurs at Lille Europe and Ashford.

1) There is no bypass at Lille - the through tracks go through the middle of the station

2) You'd still need a hefty rebuild of International either way with 4 through platforms, and probably minimum 225kph+ capability on the chords onto/off the HS2 main line (so still some fairly large radii curves)

3) Two alignments through an area = considerably more land take and construction over all

 

[B&I]

Germany is a renting culture, so house prices are not of any significance (and most people rent from housing associations and other large landlords, so the price of housing doesn't drive rents, either). One effect of this is that the workforce is very mobile - if you move jobs, just rent a different flat.

I knew all that, but homes have some sort of re-sale value, even if the differences in habitual tenure probably mean it is different to average prices in England ?

 

[Bald Rick]

So, what you're saying is, a metropolitan area of approximately 2 million people.should happily sacrifice its future prospects of attracting many types of investment because the country as a whole will make money out of HS2. Where exactly is the upside for Liverpool's residents in a future acting as collateral.damage for other people's ambitions ?

Same applies to the Potteries, Humberside, Tyne/Wearside, the Solent, East Anglia, the West Country, Wales, Scotland etc. HS2 simply cannot be built to everywhere.

Also applies to Toulouse, Nice, Munich, Hamburg, Bremen, the entire northern Rhein-Ruhr conurbation (about 7 million people), none of which are on new high speed rail lines, but are on the high speed service network.

So what makes Liverpool special compared to all these?

 

[B&I]

Same applies to the Potteries, Humberside, Tyne/Wearside, the Solent, East Anglia, the West Country, Wales, Scotland etc. HS2 simply cannot be built to everywhere.

Also applies to Toulouse, Nice, Munich, Hamburg, Bremen, the entire northern Rhein-Ruhr conurbation (about 7 million people), none of which are on new high speed rail lines, but are on the high speed service network.

So what makes Liverpool special compared to all these?

How about, it is much closer to the planned high speed line than the other British conurbations; it is bigger than all of them; and, almost uniquely, is at risk of experiencing economic shrinkage due to HS2 ?

Have you thought up any reasons yet why anyone who is at all concerned for Liverpool's future economic health should support HS2 in its current form, beyond 'take one for the team' ?

If HS2 had not been designed to serve 4 cities only at ludicrous expense, it would in fact be possible to use the money earmarked for it to improve the railway network generally over a much wider area

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about, it is much closer to the planned high speed line than the other British conurbations; it is bigger than all of them; and, almost uniquely, is at risk of experiencing economic shrinkage due to HS2 ?

1. If it's nearer, then the short run on the classic line (not a slow classic line) is no issue.
2. It is not bigger than Manchester, Birmingham or London.
3. I really don't think it will. It will get 2tph to London via HS2. What's wrong with that?

 

[B&I]

1. If it's nearer, then the short run on the classic line (not a slow classic line) is no issue.
2. It is not bigger than Manchester, Birmingham or London.
3. I really don't think it will. It will get 2tph to London via HS2. What's wrong with that?

1. Although the centre of Liverpool is approximately 20 miles from.the HS2 trunk line, trains will spend approximately 40 miles on 'classic' ie slow lines to Crewe. Because classic compatibles will not tilt, these trains will take longer to cover this stretch than current services
2. It is bigger than all the other conurbations Bald Rick.listed, so your point is irrelevant
3. Getting 2 (200 m) TPH to London is of little relevance when the closest large city, and most important competitor for investment, will have 3 400 m TPH which will make each leg of the journey 30.mins faster. (I note you fail to mention Birmingham, which is unsurprising as, post-HS2, Manchester will have 5 times the seats Liverpool does per hour, taking 45 minutes less per leg). As for the risk of economic shrinkage, it was KPMG who raised that, in a report commissioned (then buried) by HS2 Ltd.

Maybe I shouldn't expect a forum of rail obsessives to be capable of thinking about the real world. Implications of railway developments, but I ask this question again: why would anyone In Liverpool support a scheme which, according to consultants hired by its own promoters, risks inflicting economic damage on the city ? This is real-world consequences for people's jobs and lives we are talking about. I make no apologies for being more worried about those than about what maby on here seem to be approaching with all the glee of a £50 bn Hornby set