Could/should HS2 Eastern leg be shelved?

[Bald Rick]

The rating of projects often go through the red/amber status, all it generally means is that the scheme isn't fully developed.

Indeed, if every project that had a red or red/Amber status was canned, we would have very few projects!

 

[JonathanH]

Indeed, if every project that had a red or red/Amber status was canned, we would have very few projects!

Yes, but would cancelling all those projects make people be more realistic about the costs and other resources needed up front to deliver them? That might not be a bad thing, not least if it removed the temptation for 'crayonistas'.

Although fewer projects would get approval if the anticipated costs were higher, it might lead to a better reputation for the construction sector and more realistic views about the affordability of new infrastructure.

In the case of the eastern leg of HS2, it seems a measure of the enormity of the costs and resource need of the overall project that there is doubt that it can actually be delivered within the UK's capabilities.

What quantum of infrastructure projects does the UK need not to lose (unique) skills in the construction sector? Could that be maintained by only running 'green' (rather than 'amber' or 'red') projects and cancelling 'red' projects at a very early stage (eg on the drawing board)?

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but would cancelling all those projects make people be more realistic about the costs and other resources needed up front to deliver them?

Project review ratings are not just about cost, far from it. You can have a project ahead of time and well under budget, and still get Red.

 

[Gareth]

Which could be rephrased as:

"I don't want my rival 35 miles away - at the other end of arguably the world's first main line, no less - to have something we haven't got even if it means we both end up worse off."

Well, what a sour beggar thy neighbour position that is!

If Manchester booms as a result of HS2, then the spillover will certainly help Liverpool, albeit less than a direct HS2 - London HSR link. And this is before we talk about NPR/HS3 and regional connectivity, which is presumably at least as important.

Codswallop. It'll do bugger all for Liverpool. If London can't defy the "spillover" falacy, there's no chance in hell Manchester will be able to.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes, but would cancelling all those projects make people be more realistic about the costs and other resources needed up front to deliver them? That might not be a bad thing, not least if it removed the temptation for 'crayonistas'.

Although fewer projects would get approval if the anticipated costs were higher, it might lead to a better reputation for the construction sector and more realistic views about the affordability of new infrastructure.

In the case of the eastern leg of HS2, it seems a measure of the enormity of the costs and resource need of the overall project that there is doubt that it can actually be delivered within the UK's capabilities.

What quantum of infrastructure projects does the UK need not to lose (unique) skills in the construction sector? Could that be maintained by only running 'green' (rather than 'amber' or 'red') projects and cancelling 'red' projects at a very early stage (eg on the drawing board)?

Eastern Leg was at least 5 years away from construction by which time the civils team would be done on phase one so could have just moved over. This is a political decision that will be sold that Trans Pennine Upgrade can be delivered quicker to realise benefits for the Tory red wall incumbents to be able to sell on the doorstep.

 

[BrianW]

Eastern Leg was at least 5 years away from construction by which time the civils team would be done on phase one so could have just moved over. This is a political decision that will be sold that Trans Pennine Upgrade can be delivered quicker to realise benefits for the Tory red wall incumbents to be able to sell on the doorstep.

There's a lot to be said for spreading the jam more thinly. A lot of people (voters) will see plans (and some action) to improve their lot, relatively quickly and hopefully with more likelihood of delivery.
Most will agree that London is well served relatively with only Crossrail 2 and Bakerloo extension likely to feature- lines pretty much at capacity in peak, no train or station lengthenings etc; more Working from Home.
It's clearly 'The North's turn', so what do they want/ need? 4-6tph connecting the major cities, in comfort, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Hull with 'hinterlands' broadly bounded by Chester, Preston, Harrogate, York, Lincoln, Nottingham, Derby, Buxton, Crewe with hopefully minimal work needed to enable reliable regular 'tube-like' services.
Then something 'in development' in time for the next General Election for the 'Midland Engine'- Stafford, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Leamington. Rugby, Peterboro, Lincoln, Sheffield, Derby ...

 

[Tobbes]

Codswallop. It'll do bugger all for Liverpool. If London can't defy the "spillover" falacy, there's no chance in hell Manchester will be able to.

Actually London does have a spillover effect.... but at least this seems to have increased the size of chops on some people's shoulders.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, but would cancelling all those projects make people be more realistic about the costs and other resources needed up front to deliver them? That might not be a bad thing, not least if it removed the temptation for 'crayonistas'.

Sorry should have been clear, when I said projects I meant any government project not just rail or even just infrastructure.

 

[Gareth]

Actually London does have a spillover effect.... but at least this seems to have increased the size of chops on some people's shoulders.

Then get over it then.

 

[Tobbes]

Then get over it then.

What a characteristically helpful input.

The reality is that if Manchester does boom, then those seeking cheaper office space etc will migrate to the surrounding centres, and Liverpool is better placed than most of the rest of the NW to benefit.

 

[The Ham]

What a characteristically helpful input.

The reality is that if Manchester does boom, then those seeking cheaper office space etc will migrate to the surrounding centres, and Liverpool is better placed than most of the rest of the NW to benefit.

The other thing to bear in mind is that whilst Liverpool doesn't benefit as much as it could do it it had its own high speed line into the city, it's still going to see some journey time improvements.

Which is likely to mean that if tents do rise elsewhere then some would decently consider it. As whilst it'll not be 68 minutes (Manchester London journey time) is still going to be 94 minutes, which puts Liverpool cost than Manchester currently is.

Also whilst time is money, the extra 52 minutes for a return trip is likely to be reduced if offices can be rented for the same money closer to the station in Liverpool than Manchester.

 

[Tobbes]

The other thing to bear in mind is that whilst Liverpool doesn't benefit as much as it could do it it had its own high speed line into the city, it's still going to see some journey time improvements.

Which is likely to mean that if tents do rise elsewhere then some would decently consider it. As whilst it'll not be 68 minutes (Manchester London journey time) is still going to be 94 minutes, which puts Liverpool cost than Manchester currently is.

Also whilst time is money, the extra 52 minutes for a return trip is likely to be reduced if offices can be rented for the same money closer to the station in Liverpool than Manchester.

Precisely- all of these points are spot on.

 

[Gareth]

What a characteristically helpful input.

The reality is that if Manchester does boom, then those seeking cheaper office space etc will migrate to the surrounding centres, and Liverpool is better placed than most of the rest of the NW to benefit.

Or more likely, more office space will be built in Manchester to meet the demand.

If the "trickle" fallacy actually worked, then London could blossom its prosperity out to the the rest of the country. There'd be no need for a "middle guy" in Manchester.

Besides, HS2 is not the first boondoggle Manchester has had bestowed upon it and none of the previous ones have notably helped Liverpool much.

If anything "trickles" due to HS2, it'll be eastward along the M62 and from there down to London.

 

[Ianno87]

Or more likely, more office space will be built in Manchester to meet the demand.

If the "trickle" fallacy actually worked, then London could blossom its prosperity out to the the rest of the country. There'd be no need for a "middle guy" in Manchester.

Besides, HS2 is not the first boondoggle Manchester has had bestowed upon it and none of the previous ones have notably helped Liverpool much.

If anything "trickles" due to HS2, it'll be eastward along the M62 and from there down to London.

Liverpool has just lost World Heirtage Status due to the level of development taking place.

 

[Gareth]

Here's another rule for you: don't comment on things you know bugger all about.

Liverpool lost WHS because it didn't agree to leave whole swatches of derelict dockland in aspic. It's not the level of development taking place it's the fact development is taking place at all - or in this case, is proposed.

In any case, it has nothing to do with HS2 and if anything significant happens other than the football stadium, it'll be despite HS2 and certainly not because of it.

 

[Ianno87]

Here's another rule for you: don't comment on things you know bugger all about.

Liverpool lost WHS because it didn't agree to leave whole swatches of derelict dockland in aspic. It's not the level of development taking place it's the fact development is taking place at all - or in the case, is proposed.

In any case, it has nothing to do with HS2 and if anything significant happens other than the football stadium it'll be despite HS2 and certainly not because of it.

Of course it has nothing to do with HS2, that's still over half a decade away.

I was just challenging the "they'll build in Mancheter rather than go to Liverpool" when quite clearly significant development is happening and does happen in Liverpool.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here's another rule for you: don't comment on things you know bugger all about.

Liverpool lost WHS because it didn't agree to leave whole swatches of derelict dockland in aspic. It's not the level of development taking place it's the fact development is taking place at all - or in the case, is proposed.

In any case, it has nothing to do with HS2 and if anything significant happens other than the football stadium, it'll be despite HS2 and certainly not because of it.

There was quite an interesting BBC podcast about that. Overall I think "stuff the WHS, let the city grow" - it's not unlike say Stonehenge a museum site - but I'm also uncomfortable with Peel Holdings, an entirely privately held company, owning and controlling vast swathes of the public realm as will result from some of these developments (think More London). At least it's (75%) a British company I suppose.

 

[Gareth]

Of course it has nothing to do with HS2, that's still over half a decade away.

I was just challenging the "they'll build in Mancheter rather than go to Liverpool" when quite clearly significant development is happening and does happen in Liverpool.

The fact development happens in Liverpool doesn't prove the HS2 bypass will have no consequences. There's not a city in the country where no development whatsoever happens.

Time will tell but so far as I'm concerned, all that's up for debate is how significant the handicap turns out to be. Liverpool's not going to come out of it in the black.

There was quite an interesting BBC podcast about that. Overall I think "stuff the WHS, let the city grow" - it's not unlike say Stonehenge a museum site - but I'm also uncomfortable with Peel Holdings, an entirely privately held company, owning and controlling vast swathes of the public realm as will result from some of these developments (think More London). At least it's (75%) a British company I suppose.

Other than the football stadium, I think you'll see some Waterloo Dock-style apartment complexes and that's about it. Even that would be too much for UNESCO though.

 

[daodao]

The fact development happens in Liverpool doesn't prove the HS2 bypass will have no consequences. There's not a city in the country where no development whatsoever happens.

Time will tell but so far as I'm concerned, all that's up for debate is how significant the handicap turns out to be. Liverpool's not going to come out of it in the black.

The fairest and most economical approach to further HS2 development would be to:

• terminate the western leg at Crewe. Manchester and Liverpool should be treated evenhandedly; building the further extension to Manchester only (part of which will be underground) is profligate for less than a handful of trains per hour.
• not build the eastern leg at all, but run 2 tph from HS2 part 1 via Derby to Sheffield, using the classic Midland route, with the fast non-stop services from St Pancras to Leicester (2 tph) all terminating at Nottingham.

 

[Watershed]

terminate the western leg at Crewe. Manchester and Liverpool should be treated evenhandedly; building the further extension to Manchester only (part of which will be underground) is profligate for less than a handful of trains per hour.

I am quite amused at the suggestion that, because Liverpool might otherwise be at a disadvantage, phase 2b west should be scrapped! On that basis you might say the whole project should be scrapped - after all, Cardiff won't benefit, for example.

I suspect it will all end up making a lot more sense once the Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) is published, which may for example suggest a new high-speed alignment from Manchester Airport to Liverpool (branching off initially towards the south, forming a large triangle with HS2 towards Wigan). Not all that different to the Birmingham Curzon Street 'branch' in a way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fairest and most economical approach to further HS2 development would be to:

• terminate the western leg at Crewe. Manchester and Liverpool should be treated evenhandedly; building the further extension to Manchester only (part of which will be underground) is profligate for less than a handful of trains per hour.

This slightly misses a fairly key point (indeed one of the main drivers behind HS2 being primarily a capacity build). South of Manchester the commuter lines are very much constrained by 5tph of IC services (3 Avanti and 2 XC), south of Liverpool they aren't because there aren't many busy local commuter stations on the line via Runcorn (there are stations, but hourly is enough for the demand) and there is only 1/2tph IC anyway. Thus the line south of Manchester is needed more, and it's nothing to do with "fairness".

 

[daodao]

This slightly misses a fairly key point (indeed one of the main drivers behind HS2 being primarily a capacity build). South of Manchester the commuter lines are very much constrained by 5tph of IC services (3 Avanti and 2 XC), south of Liverpool they aren't because there aren't many busy local commuter stations on the line via Runcorn (there are stations, but hourly is enough for the demand) and there is only 1/2tph IC anyway. Thus the line south of Manchester is needed more, and it's nothing to do with "fairness".

These 5 tph express services already exist, although 4 of them are routed via Macclesfield at present. If more are routed via Crewe, some could take the Styal loop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

These 5 tph express services already exist, although 4 of them are routed via Macclesfield at present. If more are routed via Crewe, some could take the Styal loop.

Which still has a local service (plus all the Airport terminators that can't really go anywhere else bar building west facing terminal platforms in the city centre) and suffers the same issue.

The difference is because Liverpool has Merseyrail which is nearly fully segregated, Manchester doesn't, its local services run on the mainline. So you need those mainline services off the existing mainline so proper local services more like Merseyrail can be provided. Hence HS2.

You could build Crewe-Manchester as a 125mph route which would bring the situation closer to Liverpool, but I doubt you'd save much.

 

[edwin_m]

NPR relies on the HS2 Manchester section, but also delivers a high speed link into Liverpool from the south.

 

[Bletchleyite]

NPR relies on the HS2 Manchester section, but also delivers a high speed link into Liverpool from the south.

Indeed, though that's a positive side effect in HS2 terms. NPR is intended to relieve the CLC and Chat Moss lines (and Castlefield), which unlike the Runcorn lines (and more like the south Manchester lines) really are chock full of local trains which themselves could do with frequencies increasing.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed, though that's a positive side effect in HS2 terms. NPR is intended to relieve the CLC and Chat Moss lines (and Castlefield), which unlike the Runcorn lines (and more like the south Manchester lines) really are chock full of local trains which themselves could do with frequencies increasing.

Yes, it creates benefits for several services entering Liverpool. Whether this is enough to counteract the fact that it also benefits Manchester is not for me to say.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, it creates benefits for several services entering Liverpool. Whether this is enough to counteract the fact that it also benefits Manchester is not for me to say.

Never mind the War of the Roses, you'd get far more benefit for the North West as a whole if the two major cities could just work together politically as one. De-facto the area around Liverpool, Manchester, Chester and Preston is a giant conurbation rather like the Randstad in the Netherlands or the Ruhrgebiet in Germany, it is not standalone cities in how people live, socialise and work.

Part of that would involve accepting that Manchester is a de-facto regional capital (a bit like Leeds is across t'Pennines, and nobody seems to really care that much about that), and that things that benefit it also benefit the area around it to a fair extent - Liverpool included.

Edit: I wonder if, if he put his mind to it, Andy Burnham might be one of the few politicians who would be capable of causing that to happen - he is after all a Scouser...

 

[Gareth]

Starts out with two major cities and ends with "defacto regional capital". Ffs.

 

[Tobbes]

Or more likely, more office space will be built in Manchester to meet the demand.

If the "trickle" fallacy actually worked, then London could blossom its prosperity out to the the rest of the country. There'd be no need for a "middle guy" in Manchester.

Besides, HS2 is not the first boondoggle Manchester has had bestowed upon it and none of the previous ones have notably helped Liverpool much.

If anything "trickles" due to HS2, it'll be eastward along the M62 and from there down to London.

If you looked at the economy of, say, Reading, you'd see the trickle reality in action. Until I worked there, I'd assumed that Reading was a commuter dormitory for London 30 mins from Paddington. It is; but more commuters commute into Reading than out of Reading - cheaper than London, close enough to get there quickly as needed: the spillover in action.

Will HS2 lead to more office building in Manchester? Yes, almost certainly. Does that benefit Liverpool? Sure, commuting to Manchester would increase at the margin- and people commute because their lives improve despite the faff of the travel.

So yes, Liverpool will benefit from Manchester's growth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Starts out with two major cities and ends with "defacto regional capital". Ffs.

London and Birmingham are both major cities, while London is the capital of the UK. I don't see anything contradictory in that.

It's like bus companies spatting over passengers while ignoring all the cars driving past. The North West needs to come together as one to truly challenge the South East, and that will mean Manchester as a regional capital.

It's like Rotterdam and Den Haag, both major cities in the Randstad. Den Haag is more important politically. This doesn't bother them, they get on with working together for the prosperity of the region.