HS2 and Liverpool

[PR1Berske]

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?

That's my take from this, yes. Nobody benefits. There will be a classic network, it loses direct trains (something pro-hs2 people brush away as collateral), and it remains far down the investment list for as long as HS2 hoovers up money.

If you're in Burnley, you will not see any direct benefit from billions spent on a new railway connection, be it at Birmingham or just to the side.

What we should be doing is putting the money *where it matters* not where people can't get to without using underfunded railways.

 

[6Gman]

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

PR1berske is a good guy, but he does have a - self-admitted - obsession on HS2.

 

[6Gman]

HS2 is still designed to connect London to Birmingham, and you know it.

No I don't. Because it's simply not true. As the considerable amount of work (and expenditure) already carried out north of Birmingham attests.

 

[The Ham]

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

Circa £14.5 billion in improvements (circa £20 billion in today's money) in the first 6 years of that 20 year period, with further spending since.

 

[6Gman]

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.

If the two Birminghams switch to HS2 they'll be carrying an awful lot of fresh air. I use those trains quite a lot out of Liverpool. The only time they are really busy is in the evening peak out of Liverpool, and (by my estimate) 30-40% of the passengers have alighted by Winsford.

 

[The Planner]

That's my take from this, yes. Nobody benefits. There will be a classic network, it loses direct trains (something pro-hs2 people brush away as collateral), and it remains far down the investment list for as long as HS2 hoovers up money.

If you're in Burnley, you will not see any direct benefit from billions spent on a new railway connection, be it at Birmingham or just to the side.

What we should be doing is putting the money *where it matters* not where people can't get to without using underfunded railways.

Since you havent acknowledged it, we can presume that you will stop "it only goes to Birmingham" line now. The Burnley comment is a straw man, not one enhancement to any part of the railway can benefit everyone.

 

[6Gman]

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 .

I realise that the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

And of course there are busy services on each route (not helped by the fares policy). The point I was making was that the economic case for HS2 to Liverpool is pretty weak when existing (hourly) trains are lightly loaded through much of the day and the peak loadings can be met by strengthening the service at key times.

There may well be a case for a few additional services, but that's a long way from justifying 20 miles of high-speed railway.

 

[snowball]

Among the things you'd never guess from PR1Berske's posts are the facts that the main line of HS2 phase 1 continues for 20 miles after the Birmingham turnoff and ends at a point that is 60% of the way from Euston to Liverpool and two-thirds of the way from Euston to Manchester.

 

[The Ham]

I realise that the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

And of course there are busy services on each route (not helped by the fares policy). The point I was making was that the economic case for HS2 to Liverpool is pretty weak when existing (hourly) trains are lightly loaded through much of the day and the peak loadings can be met by strengthening the service at key times.

There may well be a case for a few additional services, but that's a long way from justifying 20 miles of high-speed railway.

Which is why you would want to build phase 1 and see what the actual numbers are like and then look at building more links.

If passenger numbers jump significantly there could be further HS lines being planned during the late 2020's.

The shorter links, such as those to Liverpool, could be an "easy" win.

Even if you look at passenger numbers in the early 2020's, if passenger numbers on the classic network are high you could start on those extra parts. If that is the case it could be that new HS lines could be being built during the 2030's.

 

[B&I]

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.

Sorry, didn't realise that as didn't spend enough time.looking through the info HS2 sat on until.an FoI request was made.

So why just Liverpool and Glasgow then.

 

[The Ham]

Sorry, didn't realise that as didn't spend enough time.looking through the info HS2 sat on until.an FoI request was made.

So why just Liverpool and Glasgow then.

There's lots of locations which are impacted, for the simple reason they are locations which are locations which are reliant on travel. Probably a lot of the cost impact on Liverpool is down to the number of goods which comes in by sea.

If transport costs double then the cheap imports become less cheap and people making stuff in the UK start to become better value, which then reduces the amount of trade passing through the docks at Liverpool. This then in turn impacts the city, but benefits those areas where they are already making things.

 

[B&I]

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.

1 train. Scientific !

I'd be carefil with that sort of talk. Seem to remember that current trains to the cities which are getting 400 m captive services are far from full as well. There was conclusive proof of this when i got a seat on a train from Leeds to Stevenage the other Monday teatime.

 

[B&I]

If the two Birminghams switch to HS2 they'll be carrying an awful lot of fresh air. I use those trains quite a lot out of Liverpool. The only time they are really busy is in the evening peak out of Liverpool, and (by my estimate) 30-40% of the passengers have alighted by Winsford.

Then you're clearly not on them when they frequently leave Crewe with close to no seats available, largely it seems because lots of people have transferred from the LM Trent Valley service which acts as a second surrogate London-Liverpool train.

Do you see the problem with this anecdotal evidence ? Other people come along with their own experiences and they turn out to be completely different to yours.

 

[B&I]

I realise that the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

And of course there are busy services on each route (not helped by the fares policy). The point I was making was that the economic case for HS2 to Liverpool is pretty weak when existing (hourly) trains are lightly loaded through much of the day and the peak loadings can be met by strengthening the service at key times.

There may well be a case for a few additional services, but that's a long way from justifying 20 miles of high-speed railway.

What's the economic case for the last 20 miles of railway into Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds ? Can you tell me what the BCRs are for those particular stretches of track ?

 

[B&I]

Which is why you would want to build phase 1 and see what the actual numbers are like and then look at building more links.

If passenger numbers jump significantly there could be further HS lines being planned during the late 2020's.

The shorter links, such as those to Liverpool, could be an "easy" win.

Even if you look at passenger numbers in the early 2020's, if passenger numbers on the classic network are high you could start on those extra parts. If that is the case it could be that new HS lines could be being built during the 2030's.

After the damage has been done, economically. Gee thanks.

How about stopping at phase 2a and seeing how we get on from there ?

 

[Ianno87]

Then you're clearly not on them when they frequently leave Crewe wotj close to no seats available, largely it seems because lots of people.have transferred from the LM Trent Valley service which acts as a second surrogate London-Liverpool train.

Do you see the problem with this anecdotal evidence ? Other people come along with their own experiences and they turn out to be completely different to yours.

A London-Stafford-Liverpool flow via LNWR is only busy because its
A) Only 4 car
B) Chocked full of people on absurdly cheap fares many of whom would have otherwise driven or not travelled at all

 

[B&I]

There's lots of locations which are impacted, for the simple reason they are locations which are locations which are reliant on travel. Probably a lot of the cost impact on Liverpool is down to the number of goods which comes in by sea.

If transport costs double then the cheap imports become less cheap and people making stuff in the UK start to become better value, which then reduces the amount of trade passing through the docks at Liverpool. This then in turn impacts the city, but benefits those areas where they are already making things.

There is nothing at all in the KPMG report about the cost of transporting goods increasing. The models in it are based on the sensitivity of businesses to rail connectivity when deciding where to invest. I really don't know why you feel the need to completely misinterpret its contents

 

[Ianno87]

What's the economic case for the last 20 miles of railway into Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds ? Can you tell me what the BCRs are for those particular stretches of track ?

You are spectacularly missing the point in this discussion.

By building to Brum, Manchester, Leeds first (which collectively have a BCR that passes the DfT threshold for a major scheme), they only serve to *improve* the BCR for a bolt-on scheme to Liverpool by covering major elemts of scope on their own merit.

It is in Liverpool's long term interest to have them built (or at least committed) first!

 

[B&I]

A London-Stafford-Liverpool flow via LNWR is only busy because its
A) Only 4 car
B) Chocked full of people on absurdly cheap fares many of whom would have otherwise driven or not travelled at all

Yeah people just travel 200 miles on a whim. Curse those Dcousers for getting them off the M6.

And I didn't realise that 6G Man and I were travelling on different lenghts of train, which made one look busier than the other.

 

[The Ham]

After the damage has been done, economically. Gee thanks.

How about stopping at phase 2a and seeing how we get on from there ?

No, I was saying build phase one and then phase 2 and then (possibly opening within only a few years) build further stages, as such Liverpool could have a HS line only a few years after Leeds.

Even if Liverpool was part of the HS2 core route it may have extended the end opening time by that same few years.

What economic damage?

 

[PR1Berske]

Since you havent acknowledged it, we can presume that you will stop "it only goes to Birmingham" line now. The Burnley comment is a straw man, not one enhancement to any part of the railway can benefit everyone.

But it matters. Liverpool could take the financial hit of not having a HS2 station. Burnley really could "go under". You seem to dismiss the consequences of a high speed line going to the capital while the regional fringes get little or nothing.

 

[PR1Berske]

You are spectacularly missing the point in this discussion.

By building to Brum, Manchester, Leeds first (which collectively have a BCR that passes the DfT threshold for a major scheme), they only serve to *improve* the BCR for a bolt-on scheme to Liverpool by covering major elemts of scope on their own merit.

It is in Liverpool's long term interest to have them built (or at least committed) first!

Nonsense!

Why should Liverpool wait in line? What has Liverpool done to deserve being second or third rate compared to Leeds?

 

[Ianno87]

Yeah people just travel 200 miles on a whim. Curse those Dcousers for getting them off the M6.

Yes they do. It's called leisure travel. It's discretionary and price-sensitive.

Note that Manchester and Leeds do not have an equivalent to the LNWR service.

 

[B&I]

You are spectacularly missing the point in this discussion.

By building to Brum, Manchester, Leeds first (which collectively have a BCR that passes the DfT threshold for a major scheme), they only serve to *improve* the BCR for a bolt-on scheme to Liverpool by covering major elemts of scope on their own merit.

It is in Liverpool's long term interest to have them built (or at least committed) first!

Translation: I am unable to set out the BCR for the specific.project elements of captive.lines into.Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds because no-one bothered ascertaining if they actually produced any benefit or not.

Tell me, what difference would it.make to the BCR of the overall project if it included a Liverpool spur ?

 

[B&I]

Yes they do. It's called leisure travel. It's discretionary and price-sensitive.

Note that Manchester and Leeds do not have an equivalent to the LNWR service.

You are genuinely hilarious. Liverpool gets 1 TPH direct from London, compared to 3 TPH.
to Manchester, but is somehow cheating on passenger numbers because it's possible to get there from London by changing at Crewe.

Anyway, you're talking through your hat, as it is.possible to travel to Crewe on a cheap LM fare and then travel on one of the numerous services from there to Manchester. Could it be that they don't because there's lots of cheap advance fares on the 3 TPH between Manchester and London ?

 

[B&I]

I will repeat that I have never in my time on this forum seen anyone argue anything as vociferously as certain posters will argue against anything which might benefit Liverpool, place it in a favourable light, or present it as anything other than a small fishing hamlet on the Irish Sea

 

[Ianno87]

Translation: I am unable to.set out the BCR for the specific.project elements of captive.lines into.Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds because no-one bothered ascertaining if they actually produced any benefit or not.

Correct. Though in the background it is roughly possible to identify the Net Present Value of every HS2 service based on the scheme overall, it's contribution to the Economic Case and thus the return on major elements of infrastructure scope.

Any major infrastructure not pulling its weight in benefits terms would be Value Managed out (e.g. HS1 link)

Tell me, what difference would it.make to the BCR of the overall project if it included a Liverpool spur ?

Probably reduce it slightly in all honesty (suspicion only - no evidence to justfy this).

Basically only adding capital cost whilst the existing Phase 2B case already claims all of the benefits from the frequency enhancement and a fair whack of the journey time benefit. (Without being able to claim NPR as a benefit)

 

[PR1Berske]

I will repeat that I have never in my time on this forum seen anyone argue anything as vociferously as certain posters will argue against anything which might benefit Liverpool, place it in a favourable light, or present it as anything other than a small fishing hamlet on the Irish Sea

I think the attitude against Liverpool here can only be matched by what happens when the Welsh language is mentioned!

 

[notlob.divad]

A London-Stafford-Liverpool flow via LNWR is only busy because its
A) Only 4 car
B) Chocked full of people on *absurdly cheap fares many of whom would have otherwise driven or not travelled at all

*otherwise known as reasonably priced.

Surely encouraging people off the road and onto the rails is a good thing.

 

[Ianno87]

You are genuinely hilarious.

Why, thank you.

Liverpool gets 1 TPH direct from London, compared to 3 TPH.
to Manchester, but is somehow cheating on passenger numbers because it's possible to get there from London by changing at Crewe.

No, it's cheating because you can turn up at Euston on the day when you feel like it and get a return to Liverpool for about £20, which you can't do to Manchester as easily (normal people can't be bothered/are unaware of splitting tickets and taking fancy routes)

Anyway, you're talking through your hat,

10 years experience in railway strategic planning and economics, but yeah, whatever...

as it is.possible to travel to Crewe on a cheap LM fare and then travel on one of the numerous services from there to Manchester. Could it be that they don't because there's lots of cheap advance fares on the 3 TPH between Manchester and London ?

Not without some advance planning you can't.

I will repeat that I have never in my time on this forum seen anyone argue anything as vociferously as certain posters will argue against anything which might benefit Liverpool, place it in a favourable light, or present it as anything other than a small fishing hamlet on the Irish Sea

I hope that's not directed at me, because that is consistently *not* what I have said. I'm arguing to *strengthen* the case for an eventual HS link to Liverpool and make it more likely to eventually happen.