HS2 and Liverpool

[The Ham]

So [drum roll] if that's the case [drum roll], why is Liverpool tje only core city which sufffers economic shrinkage when the tests are applied ?

I really really do think you need to move off this subject now.

Liverpool isn't on the HS2 core, however if you look at other cities served by HS2 then you see that Liverpool isn't alone as there's Glasgow at -£77 million.

 

[PR1Berske]

Why not? He usually does ...

Untrue.

 

[6Gman]

Untrue.

You regularly claim that Phase 1 won't go north of Birmingham. You regularly quote the cost of the whole scheme when referring to the first phase. You regularly claim a longer timescale than is actually planned.

Either that or my memory's going.

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 is only designed to connect London with Birmingham. Nothing else is certain or guaranteed.

HS2 is designed to relieve the south WCML. It will "connect" London with the VT destinations that are currently connected other than North Wales as diesel won't be allowed on it.

 

[6Gman]

Incidentally, has anyone addressed the issue I raised earlier in the thread.

How does one justify HS2 to Liverpool when the existing London trains are rarely full?

e.g. 1747 Liverpool - Euston on Monday, 25% in Standard.

 

[The Ham]

Either that or my memory's going.

If that's the case, so has my memory gone too.

 

[notlob.divad]

Incidentally, has anyone addressed the issue I raised earlier in the thread.

How does one justify HS2 to Liverpool when the existing London trains are rarely full?

e.g. 1747 Liverpool - Euston on Monday, 25% in Standard.

and the 1740 London Euston - Liverpool Lime Street?

 

[PR1Berske]

You regularly claim that Phase 1 won't go north of Birmingham. You regularly quote the cost of the whole scheme when referring to the first phase. You regularly claim a longer timescale than is actually planned.

Either that or my memory's going.

You're trying to divert from the main issue in this debate, Liverpool specifically. And from my post you're diverting from the issue that post-industrial northern England will not benefit from HS2 when it connects to Birmingham.

And please don't be funny. HS2 is still designed to connect London to Birmingham, and you know it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

and the 1740 London Euston - Liverpool Lime Street?

I wouldn't quote trains on which Off Peak tickets are not valid as examples of underloading, as the outrageous fare causes heavily suppressed demand on all the WCML routes, not just Liverpool.

Having said that, I think the proposed 2tph of 200m trains to/from London is quite adequate for the time being.

 

[Clip]

The third party funding is not really the issue. Liverpool offered to fund its own branch and was rebuffed. .

Do you have a link to this and what the funding package was?

 

[notlob.divad]

There's a difference between having HS2 not being the best route into Manchester and HS2 not being built at all.

There is, we can agree on that. That is why I don't want to stop HS2 being built. I have a huge problem with the routing of HS2 north of Crewe and a smaller problem with the Branches into Leeds and Birmingham. Build away to Crewe, get started on the eastern Branch towards Sheffield and Leeds. But hold off on the Crewe-Manchester Alignment until a clear picture of NPR is developed so that the infrastructure can be built to maximise the benefits of the whole rather than the initial limited scope given to HS2.

However there's a problem, a lot of those who oppose HS2 don't want it built at all. As such if a group who don't like a specific alignment then align with groups who oppose the who project then there's a risk that nothing happens. As such no benefits are obtained rather than some benefits.

That maybe true. The problem with the outright defense of HS2 even it's fundamental flaws as demonstrated on this thread: you push the people like me, who have an opinion of 'If you are going to build it, build it properly.' towards the position of 'If you are not going to build it properly, don't bother building it at all'.

I have never said that HS2 is perfect, likewise it's not uncommon for government to spend money which results in them having to spend more to get the best results of future projects.

There's an argument that if HS2 is built on a bad alignment so that NPR had to take a different route then the result is three HS lines in Manchester, providing extra capacity over if only two routes were built. Yes there would be extra costs, however chances are these would be offset by the extra benefits.

These two arguements seem incedible week. Governement always waste money doing the wrong thing, so we should allow them to spend more money in the wrong way rather than pressurising them to spend it in the right way. Combined with, if you back the obviously flawed alignment then there is a chance you will get both that and the correct alignment. they seem a ridicuolous arguement when you consider it is your tax money that is paying for it. If I pay a builder to come into my house, I make damn sure he knocks down the right wall. I don't let him crack on knocking down the wrong one knowing that I am going to have to pay him to knock down the correct one later.

It seems to me that rather than getting both alignments into Manchester you would end up not getting the East-West alignment as the flaws in the original alignment would shift the Cost-Benefit ratio in the wrong direction. Increased costs for the longer and more complex tunneling involvedn : Decreased Benefits from the longer journey times resulting.

 

[Chester1]

But trust me, when you suggest that Burnley won't benefit from HS2, as you say, supporters will mostly sneer and scoff. Once it gets to Birmingham, and possibly stops there for years, there will be little benefits to post-industrial Northern towns. Liverpool might have inbuilt resilience, being of its size and stature. Accrington will probably not.

And few HS2 supporters acknowledge this.

It will stop in Birmingham for years?! The bill to extend to Crewe is mid way through becoming law. Phase 2a is due to open 1 year after phase 1 and due to it being much more simple in terms of engineering, any significant delay to phase 1 would mean both sections opening at the same time. You have argued against HS2 so often that you must know the timetable and the progress of the neccessary acts of parliament but you choose to repeat a completely out of date argument that it will never go no north of Birmingham because phase 2 will be cancelled. That argument was debunked when the section to Crewe was fast tracked, although is still popular with lazy journalists.

 

[notlob.divad]

I wouldn't quote trains on which Off Peak tickets are not valid as examples of underloading, as the outrageous fare causes heavily suppressed demand on all the WCML routes, not just Liverpool.

Having said that, I think the proposed 2tph of 200m trains to/from London is quite adequate for the time being.

Point taken. It was more the fact that 6Gman referenced a service towards the capital city in the evening peak. I feel many trains heading towards London at that time, would be significantly less loaded than their equivilents going the other way, irrespective of the pricing structure. Maybe a better example would have been to query the 20:05 which left London Euston at the same time the service 6Gman was refering to arrived.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

The whole HS2 debacle already has the making of a complete mess. Everyone involved in it's construction is already licking their lips as to how they can profiteer from the project. Everyone knows it will run hideously late and fantastically beyond budget to an extent that most of us don't have enough zeroes on our calculators. We all know this will happen and it will only end up benefiting a fraction of the populous that is expected to pay for it.

 

[The Ham]

That maybe true. The problem with the outright defense of HS2 even it's fundamental flaws as demonstrated on this thread, you push the people like me, who have an opinion of 'If you are going to build it, build it properly.' towards the position of 'If you are not going to build it properly, don't bother building it at all'.

I wasn't aware of the concerns about the alignment through Manchester until you brought it up on this thread over the last few days, a better thread for discussing it would be on here:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/we-need-high-speed-rail-but-is-hs2-really-needed.168600/

 

[PR1Berske]

The whole HS2 debacle already has the making of a complete mess. Everyone involved in it's construction is already licking their lips as to how they can profiteer from the project. Everyone knows it will run hideously late and fantastically beyond budget to an extent that most of us don't have enough zeroes on our calculators. We all know this will happen and it will only end up benefiting a fraction of the populous that is expected to pay for it.

Exactly this.

Problem is, if we on this forum collate all the HS2 threads, it all dilutes to the same arguments. It says a hell of a lot that, despite the millions already spent, it remains such a divisive project that has yet to convince people of its worth. There was a thread on here, I think locked now, that asked why HS2 was treated differently by enthusiasts than other projects: I don't think a single answer was ever agreed on. There is clearly something about HS2 which causes such emotional responses: maybe it's the billions spent on getting to Birmingham, maybe it's the time-scale, maybe it's how a tiny spur to Rugeley is supposed to benefit the whole of post-industrial northern England somehow.

Whatever it is, I suspect we're going to be turning around and around this debate for years and years and years. HS2 is already proven (on this thread and others) not to benefit Liverpool, one of the most major cities in England. How many other places are going to suffer?

 

[The Ham]

The whole HS2 debacle already has the making of a complete mess. Everyone involved in it's construction is already licking their lips as to how they can profiteer from the project. Everyone knows it will run hideously late and fantastically beyond budget to an extent that most of us don't have enough zeroes on our calculators. We all know this will happen and it will only end up benefiting a fraction of the populous that is expected to pay for it.

So extending its scope to include a line to Liverpool will help that in what way, other than adding a few more people (or at least a few percent of the population) to the HS2 core?

There's an argument that if you built a line of the same distance North towards Newcastle and Scotland it would benefit more people.

 

[The Ham]

HS2 is already proven (on this thread and others) not to benefit Liverpool, one of the most major cities in England. How many other places are going to suffer?

HS2 had been calculated in one report that it would not benefit Liverpool if travel costs were to double whilst other costs remained static.

If that scenario were to happen then the whole UK would suffer without HS2, with HS2 some places would still do OK.

 

[notlob.divad]

I wasn't aware of the concerns about the alignment through Manchester until you brought it up on this thread over the last few days, a better thread for discussing it would be on here:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/we-need-high-speed-rail-but-is-hs2-really-needed.168600/

Personally I think here is the best place to discuss it. We are told that a Liverpool HS2 spur is poor value for money as it would only carry 2 tph. (Actually 4tph, 2 to London plus the two to Birmingham which could also switch) Whilst the Manchester spur is good value for money as it can carry the 3tph (actually 5tph, 3 to London and 2 to Birmingham). So 1 TPH is the difference between a good value for money spur and a bad value for money spur.

So.. we are told, we can use the spare capacity on both branches as the western half of NPR to increase the value for money of the branches. Therefore the premise of Liverpool getting a branch at all is predicated on the best cost benefit analysis being found for NPR. The lower the CBR the lower the chances of NPR happening the lower the chances of Liverpool getting a HS2 branch. Therefore the alignment into Manchester, the extra costs and reduced benefits it creates for NPR, is the biggest obstacle to Cross North connectivity and from this thread's point of view Liverpool getting a full HS2 connection.

 

[PR1Berske]

HS2 had been calculated in one report that it would not benefit Liverpool if travel costs were to double whilst other costs remained static.

If that scenario were to happen then the whole UK would suffer without HS2, with HS2 some places would still do OK.

Is that good enough, in your opinion?

 

[Ianno87]

Respublica costed the Liverpool HS2 link at 'no more than 3 billion GBP' Liverpool as a city firstly offered to pay the first 2 billion.

I cannot believe there are people commenting on this thread, on a rail forum who have not read the 20mm report, the Respublica report or HS2s own report each of which forecasts economic damage to the Liverpool City region relative to other areas as a result of current HS2 plans.

Respublica. A think tank. I wonder to what level of detail and maturity they designed their £3bn high speed line to come up with that estimate?

 

[The Ham]

Is that good enough, in your opinion?

Is what good enough, have they carried out a robust calculation?

Or are you asking if something highly unlikely to happen (which would put a big hole a lot of personal finances, I don't know about you but if fuel for my car jumped from 135p to 270p effectively overnight, at least in inflation terms, it would significantly limit what journeys I made) resulted in harm to much of the UK even after the benefits of HS2 was calculated was going to be a good thing, I would say no. However as I've pointed out it's not something that is likely and was only chosen to stress test the results. Which still show a positive result for the UK as a whole and there's no location where it negatively impacts on the local economy by more than 2%, as such even if it did happen it would just put the economy back by at most 1 year of positive growth.

 

[B&I]

There's a difference between having HS2 not being the best route into Manchester and HS2 not being built at all.

I have never said that HS2 is perfect, likewise it's not uncommon for government to spend money which results in them having to spend more to get the best results of future projects.

However there's a problem, a lot of those who oppose HS2 don't want it built at all. As such if a group who don't like a specific alignment then align with groups who oppose the who project then there's a risk that nothing happens. As such no benefits are obtained rather than some benefits.

There's an argument that if HS2 is built on a bad alignment so that NPR had to take a different route then the result is three HS lines in Manchester, providing extra capacity over if only two routes were built. Yes there would be extra costs, however chances are these would be offset by the extra benefits.

On a related note NR appear to prefer NPR over Trans Pennie upgrades.

So you're saying that, if HS2's route to Manchester turned out to be a complete Horlicks, another multi-billion pound route would be built to make up for the errors ? Are you trying to prove the claims of bias towards Manchester right ? And what happened to your one-man crusade earlier against excess capacity on HS2 ?

Perhaps, if HS2's plamners had taken more time to iron out its flaws, they could have persuaded more people of its merits, and would have fewer opponents now. It may not be too late to uncircle the rhetorical wagons, retreat from a position where no-one feels able to appraise anything calmly out of fear of giving succor to the enemy, and perhaps get more people on board with the project

 

[The Planner]

You're trying to divert from the main issue in this debate, Liverpool specifically. And from my post you're diverting from the issue that post-industrial northern England will not benefit from HS2 when it connects to Birmingham.

And please don't be funny. HS2 is still designed to connect London to Birmingham, and you know it.

So no one who travels from north of Birmingham via the trains that connect to HS2 at Handsacre benefits? Not even Liverpool? Are you suggesting when phase 1 opens, trains are only operating to Birmingham?

 

[PR1Berske]

So no one who travels from north of Birmingham via the trains that connect to HS2 at Handsacre benefits? Not even Liverpool? Are you suggesting when phase 1 opens, trains are only operating to Birmingham?

HS2 only operates to Birmingham, yes. There's a spur (?) at Rugeley. Nobody will benefit north of there because the classic network has been starved of investment precisely because HS2 has been missold as the best thing ever.

As the Ham says in their response to me, there are places, such as Liverpool, where there will be little or no benefit from HS2 on current projections.

 

[The Ham]

HS2 only operates to Birmingham, yes. There's a spur (?) at Rugeley. Nobody will benefit north of there because the classic network has been starved of investment precisely because HS2 has been missold as the best thing ever.

As the Ham says in their response to me, there are places, such as Liverpool, where there will be little or no benefit from HS2 on current projections.

That is not what I'm saying, what I said was that in the model where transport costs doubled that most places wouldn't benefit, even with all the benefits of HS2. However without HS2 things would be a lot worse for a lot more people.

 

[The Planner]

So clearly as others have pointed out in the past you haven't researched how the line works? Birmingham is on a spur, the main line continues to the WCML at Handsacre and then to Crewe as part of phase 2A. To clarify, no one north of Birmingham benefits whatsoever from HS2 trains that join the WCML when phase 1 opens?

 

[Ianno87]

HS2 only operates to Birmingham, yes. There's a spur (?) at Rugeley.

Wrong way round. The main line is to (just shy of) Rugeley, with a spur into Birmingham.

In Phase 1, served by 7tph and 3tph respectively.

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 only operates to Birmingham, yes. There's a spur (?) at Rugeley. Nobody will benefit north of there because the classic network has been starved of investment precisely because HS2 has been missold as the best thing ever.

That is utter rubbish. In what way has the classic WCML been starved of investment? It's had a fortune spent on it over the past 20 years.

As the Ham says in their response to me, there are places, such as Liverpool, where there will be little or no benefit from HS2 on current projections.

So, Liverpool won't benefit from the shortened journey times or the approximate doubling of capacity by moving from a Pendolino once an hour to two 200m high speed trains?

 

[driver_m]

Incidentally, has anyone addressed the issue I raised earlier in the thread.

How does one justify HS2 to Liverpool when the existing London trains are rarely full?

e.g. 1747 Liverpool - Euston on Monday, 25% in Standard.

Right. That's a poor arguement to start off with. You cannot use anecdotal evidence of ONE train to justify why Liverpool doesn't deserve extra trains.

Now I sit in said train at the front and have the ability to see what it's carrying weight-wise. Now by anyones estimate, when it's hitting 150-160% full. It's full. (Needs to hit 175% to prevent tilt being used) . Look at the chopping and changing to the 1907 for instance, to get a reasonable number of pax on it rather than a crazy number of pax by taking intermediate stops out of it . Why do we run a 2005 and a 2008 out of Euston on a Sunday? 3 minutes apart. Both trains can be heavily loaded. How does the city justify a 0700 just like Manchester that stops once enroute? The truth is that some services, like others on the route, can be hammered, can be quiet or can be nicely loaded. Same applies at Manchester, some carry fresh air, then the week after are chocker. The North Wales route is even more extreme, and the Glasgow's are usually consistently full.

The truth is that pretty much all the single run routes need extra services at certain times. Whether they need half hourly, hmm, but definitely more than now .