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

[snowball]

It's better to leave it unwired as it suffers the same problems as Dawlish.

And should they de-electrify Saltcoats and Largs on the same principle? Strange how it seems to work there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know, because I rarely travel to Scotland. i was just amused by your summary of the likely sources of demand

What other sources of demand for a service from Crewe specifically would you suspect? The trains call at all stations between WBQ and Preston, I believe, so those are served by 2tph to Scotland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

have different meanings for other people? The Shrewsbury and Stoke lines feed a lot of people into the northbound class 9s, which are already heavily loaded from the West Midlands.

When they are 11-car sets they are in my experience fine. The recast to make that a through service mostly using 11-car sets was probably one of VTWC's better decisions.

VT did add a Crewe stop to the Liverpools which didn't originally have one. I'm sure I recall it being said that one wasn't added to the fast Scottish services due to capacity?

But anyway, Shrewsbury can also change (to the same train) at Wolves, and Stoke can go via Manchester onto the TPEs, which once the new EMUs (which are looking VERY good) start out that's what I'd do.

 

[B&I]

What other sources of demand for a service from Crewe specifically would you suspect? The trains call at all stations between WBQ and Preston, I believe, so those are served by 2tph to Scotland.

Pretty much any town in the western half of England, and anywhere in Wales ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pretty much any town in the western half of England, and anywhere in Wales ?

As I said:
North Wales Coast - change at Warrington Bank Quay for a 2tph service.
Cambrian - change at Wolverhampton onto the existing hourly service, or Chester then as NWC.
South Wales - near enough irrelevant to Crewe and VTWC; go via Bristol and XC.
Further south: via Birmingham or XC.

Not stopping those trains only adversely affects Crewe itself, as everywhere else has another option.

 

[B&I]

Yes we get it, you think that Liverpool will wither on the vine solely because HS2 won't run to Liverpool.

Yes, at peak hours there's no increase in frequency, however that only accounts for about 25% of services. Most people would therefore be able to have a wider choice of trains.

If anything having shorter more frequent services should help with justifying a proper HS line to Liverpool, in that once those services are busy there's no scope to lengthen those trains without the HS line.

One of the things you seem to be overlooking is that because journey times to Liverpool are likely to improve (even if not to every location and those which are slower would only be by a few minutes, for instance 40 miles at 110mph rather than 125mph is an extra 2 minutes 37 second, however that time difference will be less due to real world travel rather than flat out speed), as such there's likely to be some improvements as well as some losses. Overall the difference probably isn't going to be overly that noticeable.

I'm aware of some of the impacts of the financial crisis 10 years ago and how that has impacted on government policy and how local authorities are having to make cuts, in some cases by trying to avoid their legal duties so that they can save money.

I would suggest that it's getting to the point where austerity is casing problems to the vast majority of people and so the political impact of it could be quite significant at the next election.

As to what will happen with XC services is up for debate at present, which may result in longer trains over the next franchise, however the point I was making was that by 2027/2033 (which is likely be during the following franchise to the next one) having extra paths for XC services maybe required (regardless of how long the trains get).

Odd how you dismiss casually the potential detrimental impact of HS2 on a metropolitan area of c 2 million people, as if this is something I harp on about because I'm tedious. Well, I am. But that doesn't mean that I don't need to harp on about this point, because none of the pro-HS2 lobby seem to get it

Nothing else you say is really of any importance to people in Liverpool if their economic position is threatened by HS2. Or put it another way - who cares about getting to London 30 minutes faster if you haven't a job which pays you enough to be able to afford to go ?

 

[HSTEd]

Odd how you dismiss casually the potential detrimental impact of HS2 on a metropolitan area of c 2 million people, as if this is something I harp on about because I'm tedious. Well, I am. But that doesn't mean that I don't need to harp on about this point, because none of the pro-HS2 lobby seem to get it

Nothing else you say is really of any importance to people in Liverpool if their economic position is threatened by HS2. Or put it another way - who cares about getting to London 30 minutes faster if you haven't a job which pays you enough to be able to afford to go ?

The same logic that makes HS2 detrimental to Liverpool makes all infrastructure projects that do not directly serve Liverpool detrimental to Liverpool.

So the entire UK now exists solely to further the glorious rise of Liverpool?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Odd how you dismiss casually the potential detrimental impact of HS2 on a metropolitan area of c 2 million people, as if this is something I harp on about because I'm tedious. Well, I am. But that doesn't mean that I don't need to harp on about this point, because none of the pro-HS2 lobby seem to get it

Nothing else you say is really of any importance to people in Liverpool if their economic position is threatened by HS2. Or put it another way - who cares about getting to London 30 minutes faster if you haven't a job which pays you enough to be able to afford to go ?

More and more jobs are able to be done anywhere there's an Internet connection - certainly the kind of jobs that are going to be doing frequent premium business travel to London. It really doesn't stack up.

 

[158756]

More and more jobs are able to be done anywhere there's an Internet connection - certainly the kind of jobs that are going to be doing frequent premium business travel to London. It really doesn't stack up.

People have been saying that for years already, but the concentration of business in London has only continued to increase, with the likes of the Thames Valley or Cambridge preferred over the northern cities. Liverpool might benefit from reduced journey times, but they're fighting over crumbs, and there won't be enough for everyone - HS2 will not make London any less attractive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People have been saying that for years already, but the concentration of business in London has only continued to increase, with the likes of the Thames Valley or Cambridge preferred over the northern cities. Liverpool might benefit from reduced journey times, but they're fighting over crumbs, and there won't be enough for everyone - HS2 will not make London any less attractive.

If anything HS2 will make the Home Counties (or the bits of it within driving distance of the WCML) a more desirable commuter area, as its main effect. Remember a bit quicker to Manchester is a side effect and is relatively minor when compared with what WCML PUG1 delivered (move from 1tph to 3tph and a significant speed-up).

 

[PR1Berske]

The same logic that makes HS2 detrimental to Liverpool makes all infrastructure projects that do not directly serve Liverpool detrimental to Liverpool.

So the entire UK now exists solely to further the glorious rise of Liverpool?

Cheap shot, and you know it.

HS2 is a national project and should bring positives across the nation. It doesn't, by a long chalk.

 

[snowball]

Cheap shot, and you know it.

HS2 is a national project and should bring positives across the nation. It doesn't, by a long chalk.

You're being ridiculous. No transport project can bring benefits to everywhere. The WCML electrification didn't bring benefits to Hull.

 

[gsnedders]

You're being ridiculous. No transport project can bring benefits to everywhere. The WCML electrification didn't bring benefits to Hull.

And neither HS2 nor Northern Powerhouse nor East-West Railway brings any benefit to Shetland!

 

[AndrewE]

You're being ridiculous. No transport project can bring benefits to everywhere. The WCML electrification didn't bring benefits to Hull.

It probably did...
Given the UK's prevailing westerly winds there would have been less diesel exhaust drifting eastwards, and the sparks effect may even have encouraged people there to try a trip to Birmingham via Stockport and the WCML to try out the nice new EMUs!
It would have been good for UK rail's image anyway, and might have been seen as the first step to a cleaner future for the whole country. It's just sad that it took so long to materialise and hasn't yet reached lots of lines off the few trunk routes we have done so far.

 

[snowball]

But it made the journey time to Hull less competitive compared with destinations on the west side of the country.

 

[The Ham]

Odd how you dismiss casually the potential detrimental impact of HS2 on a metropolitan area of c 2 million people, as if this is something I harp on about because I'm tedious. Well, I am. But that doesn't mean that I don't need to harp on about this point, because none of the pro-HS2 lobby seem to get it


Nothing else you say is really of any importance to people in Liverpool if their economic position is threatened by HS2. Or put it another way - who cares about getting to London 30 minutes faster if you haven't a job which pays you enough to be able to afford to go ?

I casually dismiss the negative impact on Liverpool because it would likely be fairly small and likely be offset by better connections.


For instance how easy is it too get to Southampton from Liverpool (both seaports which would probably benefit from skills being able to be transferred between the two)?

About 4.5 hours. After HS2 that would drop to less than 3.5 hours, so over an hour faster.

That makes it possible to be in Liverpool for a few hours and be able to get there and back in a day (9 hours, so not much longer thana standard 8.5 hour working day including an hour's lunch break) whilst at present it wouldn't be ideal (11 hours).

That's going to open up new opportunities which will benefit both cities. Once they start then there would be a better case for extending the HS lines to Liverpool making the link more likely.

Jobs are created by how easy and quick it is to get somewhere, as such chances are the improvements will bring significant benefits.

It's also worth noting that Liverpool will be only about 15-20 minutes further away from London as Southampton currently is.

 

[B&I]

The same logic that makes HS2 detrimental to Liverpool makes all infrastructure projects that do not directly serve Liverpool detrimental to Liverpool.

So the entire UK now exists solely to further the glorious rise of Liverpool?

Most infrastructure projects do not grant a substantial advantage to Liverpool's main economic competitor, or come with an incompetently suppressed report demonstrating a ria
Sk of substantial economic detriment to Liverpool.

I take it btw that economic detriment to an urban area of approximately 2 million people is a price worth paying for a shiny new train, in your view.

 

[B&I]

More and more jobs are able to be done anywhere there's an Internet connection - certainly the kind of jobs that are going to be doing frequent premium business travel to London. It really doesn't stack up.

What are you talking about ? If the job requires frequent business travel to London, then a city with slower, less frequent and less capacious services to London is not going to attract investment from those sorts of businesses, regardless of internet connectivity.

 

[B&I]

People have been saying that for years already, but the concentration of business in London has only continued to increase, with the likes of the Thames Valley or Cambridge preferred over the northern cities. Liverpool might benefit from reduced journey times, but they're fighting over crumbs, and there won't be enough for everyone - HS2 will not make London any less attractive.

HS2 FAN NOT CARE ABOUT ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES!!!!

 

[B&I]

I casually dismiss the negative impact on Liverpool because it would likely be fairly small and likely be offset by better connections.


For instance how easy is it too get to Southampton from Liverpool (both seaports which would probably benefit from skills being able to be transferred between the two)?

About 4.5 hours. After HS2 that would drop to less than 3.5 hours, so over an hour faster.

That makes it possible to be in Liverpool for a few hours and be able to get there and back in a day (9 hours, so not much longer thana standard 8.5 hour working day including an hour's lunch break) whilst at present it wouldn't be ideal (11 hours).

That's going to open up new opportunities which will benefit both cities. Once they start then there would be a better case for extending the HS lines to Liverpool making the link more likely.

Jobs are created by how easy and quick it is to get somewhere, as such chances are the improvements will bring significant benefits.

It's also worth noting that Liverpool will be only about 15-20 minutes further away from London as Southampton currently is.

Southampton ? Are you running out of straws to clutch at ?

Are you saying that KPMG, when reaching the conclusion that Liverpool would potentially lose £50 million in GVA per annum once HS2 is complete, forgot to take into account the inprovements HS2 will bring about in services to Liverpool ? Are you really, genuinely, honestly and truly saying that, and keeping a straight face while you do it ?

Funny how everything that everyone connected with HS2 says is infallible, until it undermines the case for HS2, at which point it suddenly becomes the case that HS2 Ltd employs halfwits as consultants

 

[B&I]

Cheap shot, and you know it.

HS2 is a national project and should bring positives across the nation. It doesn't, by a long chalk.

Big shiny new trains don't have to bring benefits

 

[PR1Berske]

Big shiny new trains don't have to bring benefits

At such a cost, at such overall disruption, with so few intermediate stations, at such cost to peoples' homes and land, with such a long timeframe, with so little tangible benefits (proven by how contentious the project still is), big shiny new trains should bring all the benefits we demand of them.

 

[quantinghome]

At such a cost, at such overall disruption, with so few intermediate stations, at such cost to peoples' homes and land, with such a long timeframe, with so little tangible benefits (proven by how contentious the project still is), big shiny new trains should bring all the benefits we demand of them.

Bit late complaining about it now though isn't it?

 

[PR1Berske]

Bit late complaining about it now though isn't it?

This is a discussion forum, and over dozens and dozens of threads there is a sense that the case for HS2 has yet to be made. We can discuss what exactly should come of it.

Now, regrettably, it appears the scheme is going ahead, connecting London Euston with Birmingham with no promise of anything afterwards. I would hope that we can perhaps debate what exactly happens now, and from this thread and others, the answer is an almighty shrugging of the shoulders.

It's never too late to ask supporters of HS2 what exactly we're going to get for the overall cost. Or indeed what the total cost is going to be.

As a matter of record, "It's a bit too late," doesn't quite work with me. I've been against HS2 from day one. Have never, will never, support it, and will not use a HS2 train or track. I've been very open about my opposition from the very, very start.

 

[si404]

What are you talking about ? If the job requires frequent business travel to London, then a city with slower, less frequent and less capacious services to London is not going to attract investment from those sorts of businesses, regardless of internet connectivity.

Without HS2, Liverpool is right off the radar: 128 minutes is too far and only 1tph - it has zero chance.

With HS2, it's 96 minutes, and 2tph - while it might not be gaining as much as other cities (unless some other scheme builds the 20 mile link) time-wise, it does gain in frequency, which most of the rest don't (Preston as the key exception). And time-wise, it still becomes 10 minutes faster than Bournemouth's headline time, and only three minutes slower than the current fastest Bristol times. It brings Liverpool into the picture for such investment.

 

[B&I]

Bit late complaining about it now though isn't it?

'So there' is not the most convincing argument I've heard in favour of a £50 bn infrastructure project

 

[Bald Rick]

Let's go through those:

More frequent and faster.London services for part of the day: substantially less relevant than a potential reduction in the size of the city's economy.

Releases nore capacity onto.the conventional network: not within 40 rail miles of Liverpool it doesn't. In particular, because of the lack of relief for the 2 track bottleneck at Winsford, the removal of only 1 TPH from this section by HS2, and the introduction of a sexond London train per hour, my rough calculation is that HS2 will permit..... approximately zero extra trains per hour to Liverpool. TfN has already pointed out that HS2 does not provide Liverpool docsk with any extra rail capacity.

Some Liverpool firms might grt some business from.the construction of HS2: they might, but they might from any infrastructure project. And in any case, any money they make would be substantially less than the potential reduction in size in Liverpool's economy, post-HS2.

Better prospects of a high speed line to Liverpool if HS2.is built than if it isn't: I'm struggling to believe that you actually wrote this. Of course Liverpool won't get a high speed line if HS2 isn't built, because there'll be no high speed line for it to link to. If HS2 doesn't currently provide for a high speed line to Liverpool, how will the creation of high spees lines to.other places make it more likely that Liverpool will receive the high speed line that there is currently no plan to build to it ?

Thank you for trying, but I think I'd rather forego the risk.of the economy of the city where I live and work shrinking, if these are the 'benefits' on offer.

Now, I am at risk.of fulfilling the.old adage about asking stupid questions amd getting stupid answers. Nonetheless, if a proper high speed.line was built to Liverpool, and it was no longer at a disadvantage compared to.competing cities re journey times, capacity and frequency of service, that would remove some of my objections. If it stopped at Crewe, I would also be happier than I am now, since it is unarguable that Liverpool will receibe no benefit at all frim any part of HS2 built past Crewe, and because stopping there would eliminate the risk of economic shrinkage that phase 2b would create. However, in either case, my view would remain that overall, HS2 is an extravagent, badly planned, badly managed, wasted opportuity, whixh is unlikely to benefit most of the country.

In summary, then, you feel that the risk to the economy of Liverpool through being at a slightly greater disadvantage (compared to Manchester) for journey times to London than today far outweighs the certainty of the improvements to the rail service to everywhere served by HS2 (including Liverpool) and the economic benefit that will bring to the U.K. as a whole, including Liverpool.

In my opinion, the risk to the economy of Liverpool is a) small and b) of negligible probability, but the transport benefit that HS2 brings is a) substantial and b) reasonably certain.

As an aside, I forgot about the principle of Generalised Journey Time (GJT). If you did Transport Economics and Planning as part of your degree you will remember that research has demonstrated that increasing the frequency of a service leads to a reduction of effective journey time even if the actual time on the move is unchanged (effectively because wait time is reduced). Because the frequency doubles to Liverpool but remains unchanged to Manchester, I suspect that when combined with the significant journey time reductions through HS2 the overall GJT improvement for Liverpool is better than for Manchester. If this is the case, and I strongly suspect it is, then the GJT reduction for Liverpool will be greater than for Manchester, and thus the ‘attractiveness gap’ between the two closes, in favour of Liverpool.

 

[B&I]

Without HS2, Liverpool is right off the radar: 128 minutes is too far and only 1tph - it has zero chance.

With HS2, it's 96 minutes, and 2tph - while it might not be gaining as much as other cities (unless some other scheme builds the 20 mile link) time-wise, it does gain in frequency, which most of the rest don't (Preston as the key exception). And time-wise, it still becomes 10 minutes faster than Bournemouth's headline time, and only three minutes slower than the current fastest Bristol times. It brings Liverpool into the picture for such investment.

Do you, too, think that KPMG somehow managed to miss all this when it concluded that Liverpool was at risk of economic shrinkage after HS2 is complete ?

 

[si404]

Do you, too, think that KPMG somehow managed to miss all this when it concluded that Liverpool was at risk of economic shrinkage after HS2 is complete ?

Do you think that KPMG were infallible in that one report whose conclusion about Liverpool hasn't been repeated?

 

[Chester1]

HS2 disadvantaging Liverpool is an argument for the proposed NPR/HS2 spur to Liverpool not an argument against building the whole line!