HS2 and Liverpool

[Camden]

10 pages of rabidly negative comments by people not from/living in Liverpool inside just a few days = something really not quite right here...

 

[urbophile]

retake the road through Garston that once went to Cressington Jn. 4 track that section and take it into a rebuilt Central Station.

Not easily done as the line runs through three conservation areas, plus is in cutting or tunnels for most of the way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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 ?

People do do that, and the irony is that many of those cheap fares from Crewe/Stoke are on VT! But that has no effect on how busy the Brum-Liverpool services are, for fairly obvious reasons.

 

[driver_m]

Not easily done as the line runs through three conservation areas, plus is in cutting or tunnels for most of the way.

Easier than 4 tracking the Chat Moss though. You surely have to agree on that point. Rainhill alone would Instantly prevent that ever happening.

 

[driver_m]

Will bet cold hard cash that it won't.



What was nonsense about it? The original plans for the Liverpool 2tph were one via phase 2a to Crewe and one coming off at Handsacre and going via Stafford and Crewe. The one via Stafford would get caught up by the fast via Crewe thus not being very attractive, so it was decided to give Stoke the service they had campaigned to get (or to shut them up depending on your point of view.) That train if terminating at Stoke was found to have enough layover time before its return journey to get to Macclesfield and back. Easy win.

Politically though, how is that going to sit in other parts that aren't getting ANY HS2 benefit? East Lancs, the Cumbrian Coast and North Wales aren't getting anything from HS2. So the media will have a field day if a well to do town smack bang in the Cheshire set area gets it and the likes of Morecambe, Barrow, Burnley etc don't.

I'm not buying that Macc terminator for one minute.

 

[driver_m]

People do do that, and the irony is that many of those cheap fares from Crewe/Stoke are on VT! But that has no effect on how busy the Brum-Liverpool services are, for fairly obvious reasons.

I do a lot of pass moves on the LNWR services to Crewe and the number of passengers that get off there and head straight for platform 3 is considerable. Already an 8 car running with further growth to come. I personally feel though there's a huge untapped market for a similar service on the WC via Bank Quay and Wigan to those places I mentioned in the last post. Interesting times ahead on the WCML that's for certain.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Examination of the evidence and further information provided reveals that Liverpool City Region actually benefits overall, (and has a population of 1.5million), and that it is only Liverpool City itself (population around half a million)t.

Though populations in traditional centres may have declined in the traditional big cities of Liverpool and Manchester many have literally just moved to adjoining boroughs. If you add the populations of Knowsley and Sefton to that of Liverpool which is a virtually continuous urban area it exceeds the vastly extended boundaries of Leeds which includes distinctly separate towns like Wetherby.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

So we have the ultimate question.

Allow a place to better itself or let it continue to underperform?

It is indeed a "big question". It's why we have elected representatives to make decisions on large scale issues. But it's also necessary to understand, and accept, that times change and economies change with them. Liverpool became a great city thanks to being a natural port but the end of the British Empire significantly reduced its usefulness to UK plc and the same geography that provided its original strength is now a hindrance to justifying significant regeneration. Liverpool's hinterland is reduced by being a coastal city and that means a smaller potential market/payback for any investor, public or private; the same sorts of problems exist for the likes of Plymouth and Hull. But Liverpool has declined from a much higher starting level so the negative impact is more keenly felt.

10 pages of rabidly negative comments by people not from/living in Liverpool inside just a few days = something really not quite right here...

And the converse is equally worthy of comment ie 10 pages of rabidly negative/jealous comments by people obviously from/living in Liverpool inside just a few days = something really not quite right here...

 

[B&I]

Long overdue and humble apologies from me for helping to trigger this ‘discussion’ back on the previous thread. Perhaps I can sum it up:

One or two posters are aggrieved that HS2 is not being built with a new link to Liverpool. Fair enough.

One poster has suggested that the Liverpool City Region (of 2m population) is the only major region at risk of a small deterioration of its economy as a result, and provided bona fide evidence in the form of link to the KPMG report and subsequent FOI. And asked the very reasonable question why anyone in Liverpool City Region would support HS2 as a result.

Examination of the evidence and further information provided reveals that Liverpool City Region actually benefits overall, (and has a population of 1.5million), and that it is only Liverpool City itself (population around half a million) that has a small chance of economic deterioration. The same evidence also suggests that there is a greater chance of economic improvement to Liverpool, and indeed the size of the improvement would be greater than any potential deterioration. On balance, therefore, the city is more likely to benefit than to lose out.

Further investigation suggests that Liverpool City is not the only region at risk of economic deterioration, but that is splitting hairs.

Most other posters take the view that as Liverpool will see a doubling of frequency to London, and an improvement in journey time on that trip of around 30 minutes, perhaps more, then Liverpool is clearly seeing an improvement, and thus doing quite well out of HS2, sufficiently so that a great many people in Liverpool will support the line. Albeit, perhaps not as many as would benefit /support as with a direct new line connection. A few posters have suggested that Liverpool will do rather better out of HS2 than many other locations around the country that are nowhere near HS2. A few posters point out that HS2 can’t serve everywhere.

Most posters agree that an extension of HS2, or some form of new railway, into Liverpool from the direction of the main HS2 trunk line will further benefit Liverpool, and some suggest it is quite likely to happen (indeed some have seen the initial route options). All agree that the case for such a line will be improved in a world with HS2 than without.

So, actually, there is agreement on almost everything, except whether the small chance of economic deterioration to the half million population of Liverpool is worth the greater chance of a larger economic improvement to the same city, and an even greater chance of an even larger economic improvement to the Liverpool City Region.

Perhaps we can leave it there re Liverpool, and stop the slanging matches?

'Please disperse ! There is nothing to see here !'

That is one of the most inaccurate summaries I have ever seen of anything. Perhaps you thought that the topic could be closed down by pretending that only 'one or two' people were worried by it. Seems to me that a small coterie of Scouseophobes and HS2 fundamentalists are the main ones keeping it going.

Has it ever occurred to you that HS2 might do better in the opinion polls it its proponents tries to engage with the wider public, rather than pretending that only.a small number of unreasonable.malcontents opposed it ?

 

[B&I]

Sorry, that you got a seat on one specific train is conclusive proof that a given route requires no additional capacity?

There was a touch of irony in that post, but my humour appers to be more subtle than I thought. I was employing the 6G Man approach to ascertaining demand for a train route

 

[B&I]

Be located where it is, tucked away in a corner where IC trains to it are only really of any use if you are going to it or its immediate commuter region, and of limited use to connect on elsewhere?

The IC trains are terminating at Leeds. And even among the pedants on this forum, it has to be admitted that over 1.5 million people live in close proximity to Liverpool.

Perhaps, if Bradford's IC services weren't even worse than Liverpool's, Leeds wouldn't have quite as big a rail hinterland. Not, I suspect, that it's that big anyway, with Doncaster, Wakefield and York all serving as IC railheads in the vicinity too.

 

[B&I]

Why, thank you.



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)



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



Not without some advance planning you can't.



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.

Liverpool is cheating ! It's not fair ! I'm taking back my train set and going home !

That will leave you more time to plan in advance how to get a cheap LM fare to Crewe plus onward ticket to Manchester, a task which is clearly so difficult.

As for your views on Liverpool, I will leave people to read your posts and form your own conclusions. (Before you threaten me with a letter from m'learned friends, remember that, to be defamatory, a statement must lower its subject in the eyes of right-thinking people.)

 

[B&I]

Euston-Liverpool calling at Stafford, Crewe and Runcorn. Pretty fast to me.

Birmingham-Liv hourly calling at Coseley, Wolves, Penkridge, Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn and S Parkway. Not exactly "every other" suburban or village station (where are the villages in that list?)

Anyway, LNWR's crowding on the service could be solved by removing the cheap fares and just charging fares more comparable to Manchester services. Simple. People might get their faces back then.

Penkridge ! The city that never sleeps !

Coseley ! So good they named it !

 

[B&I]

Liverpool is not waiting. Liverpool is getting an incrementally enhanced train service in each of phases 1, 2A and 2B, and then again with an eventual HS alignment into Central Liverpool..

Liverpool would eventually end up with the shiniest, newest, most state of the art infrastructure of the lot.

And Liverpool, unlike Manchester, actually gets net extra trains to London! (Future HS2 versus current VTWC)

Extra trains, when it currently has 1/3 of the number of direct services to Manchester. That'll make up for the economic shrinkage

 

[B&I]

Easier than 4 tracking the Chat Moss though. You surely have to agree on that point. Rainhill alone would Instantly prevent that ever happening.

Easier also than building an atmopsheric worked line toJupiter using the Brunel gauge, but still not the best solution.

For the cost of widening from Winsford to Acton Bridge, bearing in mind the cost of bridging the Weaver, you could build a substantial proportion of a line towards Liverpool from the HS2 trunk which any widened WCML would run virtually parallel to. You could certainly bu8ld a spur from the trunk somewhere west of Norwich to the Liverpool WCML branch at Weaver Junction for less, though I wouldn't urge it as it wouldn't do double duty as an 'NPR' connection, and would still mean Liverpool-bound trains to endure the painfully slow crawl through Runcorn and across the bridge

 

[B&I]

It is indeed a "big question". It's why we have elected representatives to make decisions on large scale issues. But it's also necessary to understand, and accept, that times change and economies change with them. Liverpool became a great city thanks to being a natural port but the end of the British Empire significantly reduced its usefulness to UK plc and the same geography that provided its original strength is now a hindrance to justifying significant regeneration. Liverpool's hinterland is reduced by being a coastal city and that means a smaller potential market/payback for any investor, public or private; the same sorts of problems exist for the likes of Plymouth and Hull. But Liverpool has declined from a much higher starting level so the negative impact is more keenly felt.

Can you explain why port cities, in your view, do badly economically, and why inland post-industrial cities do better ? I haven't, for example noticed New York, Barcelona, Los Angeles, Hamburg or London (all port cities, all fairly peripherally located in their respective countries) doing too badly of late.

Anyway, if you're right, shouldn't any responsible government, in particular one which is allegedly trying to rebalance the economy by building HS2, make particular efforts to overcome the diaadvantages under which, according to you, cities like Liverpool labour ? Or do you support the 'sink or swim' approach endemic to modern England, whereby most of the country is left to rot, while a handful of favoured locations enjoy colossal state subsidy, sorry, investment ?

And the converse is equally worthy of comment ie 10 pages of rabidly negative/jealous comments by people obviously from/living in Liverpool inside just a few days = something really not quite right here...

So, people asking for infrastructure provision which will eliminate a risk of economic damage to their cities is rabid negativity / jealousy ? You really do have quite an odd take on the world.

I'd say this thread has uncovered more than a little of the ugly prejudice towards Liverpool which still lurks within the breasts of many English people over a certain age, now that they're not allowed to be nasty to visible minorities.

 

[B&I]

10 pages of rabidly negative comments by people not from/living in Liverpool inside just a few days = something really not quite right here...

The most un-right thing which has I think been highlighted is the lack of any evidence of the benefits produced by building high speed links all the way to a handful of cities, rather than developing a more holistic network. I find it genuinely disturbing that extremely costly decisions are taken in this country in such a facile manner, and almost as disturbing how many people crop up on here to defend them to the death.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The most un-right thing which has I think been highlighted is the lack of any evidence of the benefits produced by building high speed links all the way to a handful of cities, rather than developing a more holistic network. I find it genuinely disturbing that extremely costly decisions are taken in this country in such a facile manner, and almost as disturbing how many people crop up on here to defend them to the death.

How is it not a holistic network when services will be using HS2 to reach other destinations using classic compatible rolling stock - Liverpool included?

It's not like they've built it Romance style (self contained). It's just a pair of "superfast" lines for the WCML.

 

[driver_m]

I don't get that a coastal position harms a City . New York being a case in point. Using the same logic. Philadelphia should be a much bigger market in relation to its location to that of New York. In the way Manchester's is to Liverpool.

Maybe this is a bit unfair. But let's ask the question, What does Leeds have to justify its HS2 link? An inland place on the route. What does it bring to the table, so to speak... Yes it's a big place, but economically, culturally and politically, What is so special?
The finance industry... Manchester has that too, as does Chester and Birmingham.

Tourism. Compared to Liverpool, York, Newcastle or even Manchester, it's got very little to shout about.

Sport. Liverpool and Manchester absolutely pummel it in bringing people to see sporting events. Leeds United are never going to draw foreign fans in, in the way those cities can.

Population. The only reason I can see to include it. Add Bradford, Wakey, Cas and surrounding areas into the mix, (this hinterland idea) and then it just becomes a quicker way of getting people into London. I can't see how Yorkshire is personally going to benefit all that much from HS2, and for me, it should be going to Scotland as one route, not this Y shape thing.

Easier also than building an atmopsheric worked line toJupiter using the Brunel gauge, but still not the best solution.

For the cost of widening from Winsford to Acton Bridge, bearing in mind the cost of bridging the Weaver, you could build a substantial proportion of a line towards Liverpool from the HS2 trunk which any widened WCML would run virtually parallel to. You could certainly bu8ld a spur from the trunk somewhere west of Norwich to the Liverpool WCML branch at Weaver Junction for less, though I wouldn't urge it as it wouldn't do double duty as an 'NPR' connection, and would still mean Liverpool-bound trains to endure the painfully slow crawl through Runcorn and across the bridge

If you were doing a HS2 route into Liverpool, what would your route of preference be? I am not trawling this forum looking for it, I've got so do some actual driving today!!!! (And what you think we'll actually end up with...)

Not taking the Mick or anything like that, genuinely what's your preference...?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't get that a coastal position harms a City . New York being a case in point. Using the same logic. Philadelphia should be a much bigger market in relation to its location to that of New York. In the way Manchester's is to Liverpool.

I wouldn't say it harms the city, but it does mean it doesn't make an effective transport hub other than for its immediate hinterland, and as such justifies a lower level of service than a more centrally located city like Leeds or Manchester which are both useful hubs for far wider journeys. Liverpool even more so than say Hamburg which isn't located on a large peninsula in the same way and so is where Liverpool would be transport wise were it located on the "rump" WCML.

This is why I think the proposed HS2 service to Liverpool is completely acceptable.

New York doesn't exactly have a fantastic train service!

 

[B&I]

How is it not a holistic network when services will be using HS2 to reach other destinations using classic compatible rolling stock - Liverpool included?

It's not like they've built it Romance style (self contained). It's just a pair of "superfast" lines for the WCML.

Not really. Someone briefed HS2 to connect Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds to.London, rather than design a network.most beneficial to the whole country. What we have is 2 captive lines serving a handful of places, and a few other destinations rather begrudgingly bolted on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really. Someone briefed HS2 to connect Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds to.London, rather than design a network.most beneficial to the whole country. What we have is 2 captive lines serving a handful of places, and a few other destinations rather begrudgingly bolted on.

This is totally false. HS2 has been designed from the start to relieve the busiest parts of the WCML.

 

[notlob.divad]

This is totally false. HS2 has been designed from the start to relieve the busiest parts of the WCML.

The two are not mutually exclusive. ie.

HS2 has been designed from the start to relieve the busiest parts of the WCML by connect Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds to London. Rather than design a network most beneficial to the whole country, what we have is 2 captive lines serving a handful of places, and a few other destinations rather begrudgingly bolted on.

 

[B&I]

I don't get that a coastal position harms a City . New York being a case in point. Using the same logic. Philadelphia should be a much bigger market in relation to its location to that of New York. In the way Manchester's is to Liverpool.

Maybe this is a bit unfair. But let's ask the question, What does Leeds have to justify its HS2 link? An inland place on the route. What does it bring to the table, so to speak... Yes it's a big place, but economically, culturally and politically, What is so special?
The finance industry... Manchester has that too, as does Chester and Birmingham.

Tourism. Compared to Liverpool, York, Newcastle or even Manchester, it's got very little to shout about.

Sport. Liverpool and Manchester absolutely pummel it in bringing people to see sporting events. Leeds United are never going to draw foreign fans in, in the way those cities can.

Population. The only reason I can see to include it. Add Bradford, Wakey, Cas and surrounding areas into the mix, (this hinterland idea) and then it just becomes a quicker way of getting people into London. I can't see how Yorkshire is personally going to benefit all that much from HS2, and for me, it should be going to Scotland as one route, not this Y shape thing.


If you were doing a HS2 route into Liverpool, what would your route of preference be? I am not trawling this forum looking for it, I've got so do some actual driving today!!!! (And what you think we'll actually end up with...)

Not taking the Mick or anything like that, genuinely what's your preference...?

My absolute ideal would be this. Clear the local trains out of Lime Street high level into Merseyrail-linked tunnels, dig / tunnel out platforms for 400 trains, run them.through the existing approaches to Edge Hill. Begin a new tunnel there to Bowring Park. Follow the M62 to a new station at Warrington (either a parkway where you cross the WCML, or to a new station at Bank Quay, with some sort of link forged via the Ditton-Arpley line). Continue east to a junction with the HS2 trunk. Continue further east, enterig tunnels around Trafford Park, to.a central Manchester station (I can see arguments for both Puccadilly and Victoria for that). Continue on east from there across Pennines.

NB Liverpool-Manchester Airport could be served by branching off the Liverpool WCML branch at Hartford and running via Northsich and Knutsford into any new western approach - an EMU service by this route to an actual airport station is likely to be quicker door to door for airport travellers than a high speed line to a field west of the airport and then a tram to the terminal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's false that the other destinations were "begrudgingly bolted on". It's been designed from day one to take the existing WCML traffic plus a few other destinations.

 

[B&I]

This is totally false. HS2 has been designed from the start to relieve the busiest parts of the WCML.

Have you any evidence of that ?

You were arguing yesterday that the real beneficiaries of HS2 were commuters out of Euston. Suddenly HS2 has become a comprehensive network. Which is it ?

 

[Ianno87]

Liverpool is cheating ! It's not fair ! I'm taking back my train set and going home !

I've explained in a previous post the point I was trying to make (probably quite badly, I admit); claiming trains full of passengers travelling on relatively cheap tickets is not a way of justifying a major infrastructure decision. There are other, better, ways that a case for investment on major infrastructure to serve Liverpool can be made.

As for your views on Liverpool, I will leave people to read your posts and form your own conclusions.

Happy to be proven otherwise, but none of my posts in this thread (or the previous) I believe to offer any form of opinion*, positive or negative, on the city of Liverpool itself, nor its City Region (and the people residing and working within it).

My opinion has been solely restricted to the timing and provision of major transport links to and from the city of Liverpool, to which my opinion is that Liverpool is deserving of a connection of a high speed line (where I agree with you), but (where I disagree with you) is most feasibly and realistically delivered as a follow-on in some way, shape or form to HS2 Phase 2B, which (in my view) is in Liverpool's ultimate long-term best interest as it is likely to lead to a much stronger justification for the investment.

*For the record, I love Liverpool. A unique, characterful city (that few other places *globally* can match) full of genuinely lovely, friendly people and many great attractions and sites.

 

[Ianno87]

You were arguing yesterday that the real beneficiaries of HS2 were commuters out of Euston.

That *is* the businest part of the WCML, both in terms of trains and passenger volume.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you any evidence of that ?

You were arguing yesterday that the real beneficiaries of HS2 were commuters out of Euston. Suddenly HS2 has become a comprehensive network. Which is it ?

It's both, as the comprehensive network is the WCML service as it is now, plus Leeds, minus North Wales.

 

[PR1Berske]

This is totally false. HS2 has been designed from the start to relieve the busiest parts of the WCML.

That's simply not true.