Could/should HS2 Eastern leg be shelved?

[HSTEd]

In the absence of the eastern leg of HS2, the section from Crewe to Manchester is critical because it is likely that most North East England traffic to London or the Western half of the country will flow over it and the TPE Main Line/NPR

The Manchester Airport-Crewe section can also be modified in a relatively minor fashion to seriously reduce the congestion on the Castlefield corridor if necessary and NPR does not materialise.

 

[Gareth]

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.

Liverpool is never going to be a commuter suburb of Manchester. I don't just say that purely because it's offensive (although it is) but because it's simply not practical or realistic. Liverpool's too large to be Reading, Manchester's way too small to be London and they're far enough apart that a 100km return daily commute is not going to improve people's lives. In fact, one would have to consider relocating. So, pull the other.

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.

So what does regional capital mean then? If a certain company wants to locate in Liverpool, does Liverpool turn it away and point them towards our capital, Manchester? Can we keep our airport? If so, are we restricted in what operations are allowed? It smacks of glass ceiling. Kinda the sort of crap the NWDA used to try and pull.

 

[HSTEd]

Liverpool's too large to be Reading, Manchester's way too small to be London and they're far enough apart that a 100km return daily commute is not going to improve people's lives. In fact, one would have to consider relocating. So, pull the other.

The distance a commute covers is immaterial.

Who cares if it's fifty or even a hundred kilometres each way if it takes only a short period of time.

With NPR Liverpool Lime Street will be comparable journey times from Meols and central Manchester, and Manchester might even have higher frequency. Journey time to Manchester Airport will be even shorter than this.

Why is one acceptable and the other not?

 

[Gareth]

Liverpool's Meols now. We'll be begging to be Reading at this rate.

Any takers on Meols? Berney Arms maybe?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what does regional capital mean then? If a certain company wants to locate in Liverpool, does Liverpool turn it away and point them towards our capital, Manchester? Can we keep our airport? If so, are we restricted in what operations are allowed? It smacks of glass ceiling. Kinda the sort of crap the NWDA used to try and pull.

No, it doesn't at all. The whole South East benefits from London's reach - pretty much the main reason why Milton Keynes is hugely successful and Skem is a giant sink estate is that influence from London (it's cheaper to locate in MK but you get most of the benefits - also true of Liverpool vs Manchester to some extent these days). With more co-operation Liverpool would benefit from Manchester's reach.

 

[Gareth]

Manchester will never be big enough nor economically powerful enough to support Liverpool. No amount of state-favoured boondoggles, or indeed, anything short of wartime-style population transfers from the latter to the former with the necessarily massive infrastructure required to accommodate such changes, will ever be adequate.

Not that you actually answered my question. You probably can't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester will never be big enough nor economically powerful enough to support Liverpool. No amount of state-favoured boondoggles, or indeed, anything short of wartime-style population transfers from the latter to the former with the necessarily massive infrastructure required to accommodate such changes, will ever be adequate.

But Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Chester and their hinterland acting as one is huge and certainly big enough to compete with London and bring the whole area up. But it'd need a capital, and as the largest and most significant city in that region it'd be Manchester. That in no way means Liverpool would lose out on investment, as there would be more to go round than before.

Not that you actually answered my question. You probably can't.

What, this?

So what does regional capital mean then?

It means the administrative seat, the seat of regional Government, and a key (but not the only) business centre.

If a certain company wants to locate in Liverpool, does Liverpool turn it away and point them towards our capital, Manchester?

No. If a company wants to locate in MK, do we turn it away and point them to London? No, of course not, that would be ridiculous.

Can we keep our airport?

The airport is a private business and stands on its own two feet. So yes, if it makes money it stays. If it doesn't it will need to change so it does.

If so, are we restricted in what operations are allowed?

No, other than what operations are profitable. (There is no case to subsidise air travel other than in very rural areas).

It smacks of glass ceiling.

Depends what you mean by that. There is one anyway, Liverpool will never, ever be economically and politically larger than London nor probably Birmingham or Glasgow. Manchester is more debatable, but if they act as one who cares?

Anyway let's go back to HS2. If HS2 (which will serve Liverpool with 2tph; a very short section of classic-line running is irrelevant, it'll still all be branded HS2) attracts a business to Manchester, with NPR people from Liverpool could work there, just as many people from Liverpool and West Lancs already do work in Manchester and indeed vice versa, as despite this shouting the whole thing already does act like one conurbation and has done for absolutely years. What's the problem?

 

[Gareth]

Sorry, no. You need to expand on that. So, you mean there will be a regional tier of government and this will be based in Manchester and have powers over what, exactly? If being capital is merely about the seat of government and little else, then why does it necessarily have to be in Manchester? Why not Liverpool or, indeed, a smaller town?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry, no. You need to expand on that. So, you mean there will be a regional tier of government and this will be based in Manchester and have powers over what, exactly?

This isn't really the thread for delving into models of potential regional UK government.

If being capital is merely about the seat of government and little else, then why does it necessarily have to be in Manchester? Why not Liverpool or, indeed, a smaller town?

Typically the largest, most important town becomes the capital (or vice versa), that's how stuff works the world over.

 

[cle]

I joined this thread late. I'm not surprised it's become all about Liverpool, but it shouldn't be.

To the actual topic, it's tricky - because there would be a lot more capacity on the HS2 Western side. Where to send those trains?

Yes, if the infrastructure to Manchester is built and it becomes an alt route to Leeds (not that much quicker, but it's something) then I would think more than 3tph need to go there from London and 2tph from Birmingham.

Leeds-Manchester folks will likely still take other services too, maybe cheaper, maybe more frequent - and maybe they need Victoria or Oxford Road. And by then, the 'trad' TPE route will be 45 mins or so. Which really isn't so bad. So I don't think the seat churn on a London/Bham-Manc-Leeds service will be crazy.

But maybe 1 tph additional from Birmingham and 2tph from London to Leeds.

These would enable the ECML services to call more. And slowing those Leeds journeys down would drive London-Leeds premium traffic to HS2. So it does part of the job. Again, they could slow down ECML Edinburgh service, and expand Scotland ones up the WCML, if capacity could be found.

A connection to the B'ham-Derby line might be worth looking at for Sheffield traffic.

And more 'semi-HS' services which leave the line at Lichfield and serve Stafford and Stoke, perhaps - even after 2B.

 

[Verulamius]

This isn't really the thread for delving into models of potential regional UK government.



Typically the largest, most important town becomes the capital (or vice versa), that's how stuff works the world over.

Albany is the capital of New York state in the US.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Albany is the capital of New York state in the US.

Every rule needs an exception.

 

[hwl]

No, Huntingdon to Peterborough and Doncaster each release capacity that can be used before Welwyn is needed. And are much, much cheaper.

Isn't "Welwyn" actually many separate issues (seven with quick bit of mental arithmetic) in a small area? With 2-3 issues much more soluble than the big ones liek Digswell (I assume the double signalling block on the viaduct is still in place and no longer needed?)

Overall capacity issues are usually combinations of issues e.g. "Welwyn" + Huntingdon-P'boro + Donacaster, with the sum not being the sum of the parts problem wise.

 

[WestRiding]

What an absolute mess this has all become.

 

[JamesT]

Albany is the capital of New York state in the US.

Every rule needs an exception.

Is it necessarily an exception? In the 18th century when Albany was made the state capital it was relatively more important. On the Hudson River it was closer to the important trading routes. Over time, that status has changed so New York City has become the most important within the state, but the capital hasn't changed to follow suit. If you were going to choose a new capital at this time you'd go NYC.

 

[Tobbes]

Liverpool is never going to be a commuter suburb of Manchester. I don't just say that purely because it's offensive (although it is) but because it's simply not practical or realistic. Liverpool's too large to be Reading, Manchester's way too small to be London and they're far enough apart that a 100km return daily commute is not going to improve people's lives. In fact, one would have to consider relocating. So, pull the other.



So what does regional capital mean then? If a certain company wants to locate in Liverpool, does Liverpool turn it away and point them towards our capital, Manchester? Can we keep our airport? If so, are we restricted in what operations are allowed? It smacks of glass ceiling. Kinda the sort of crap the NWDA used to try and pull.

I can't see why it would be offensive - why would someone who enjoys living in Liverpool and all that it has to offer but is offered a great job in Manchester that has, for example, been relocated to Manchester from London because of HS2, why would that be a bad thing? Whatever it is, it shouldn't be offensive in any way shape or form that someone wants to live in your city because of its qualities.

Looking at the comparative sizes of the Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Regions, ONS 2017 GVA tells the story: Liverpool City Region £32.03bn, Greater Manchester £66.41bn - more than twice as big, and almost identical to West Midlands (£66.67bn). Let's assume that HS2 leads to a 1% increase in GM GVA, then to achieve the same level of benefit to the UK economy, a Liverpool line instead of Manchester would have to have twice the effect. So which are you going to do? You're going to build the Manchester line every day and twice on Sunday, especially as on top of all that, Manchester has a 360 degree hinterland, whereas Liverpool has the coast.

Liverpool will benefit from HS2, and to suggest that because Manchester will benefit more it shouldn't be built north of Crewe at all is at best childish nonsense.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Why is it that every discussion completely unrelated to Manchester and Liverpool devolves into a Liverpool vs Manchester debate? Sick to death of seeing it, the same happens on forums like Skyscrapercity.

 

[Gareth]

Every rule needs an exception.

And all the others.

Why is it that every discussion completely unrelated to Manchester and Liverpool devolves into a Liverpool vs Manchester debate? Sick to death of seeing it, the same happens on forums like Skyscrapercity.

Because bad minglanders have a thing about Liverpool. My original post which triggered them was about Leeds obviously having the most to lose if the eastern branch is canned and how Whitehall will move heaven and earth to make sure the Manchester bit happens and how this isn't necessarily in Liverpool's interests. It seems, though, that stuffing Liverpool is not just an unfortunate side effect of HS2 but a fundamental attraction of it for some on here. They're convinced that Manchester can somehow subsume Liverpool and the result will be a London of the North. It can't and it won't. It doesn't even get to whether I like the idea or not. It's academic.

 

[BrianW]

I can't see why it would be offensive - why would someone who enjoys living in Liverpool and all that it has to offer but is offered a great job in Manchester that has, for example, been relocated to Manchester from London because of HS2, why would that be a bad thing? Whatever it is, it shouldn't be offensive in any way shape or form that someone wants to live in your city because of its qualities.

Looking at the comparative sizes of the Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Regions, ONS 2017 GVA tells the story: Liverpool City Region £32.03bn, Greater Manchester £66.41bn - more than twice as big, and almost identical to West Midlands (£66.67bn). Let's assume that HS2 leads to a 1% increase in GM GVA, then to achieve the same level of benefit to the UK economy, a Liverpool line instead of Manchester would have to have twice the effect. So which are you going to do? You're going to build the Manchester line every day and twice on Sunday, especially as on top of all that, Manchester has a 360 degree hinterland, whereas Liverpool has the coast.

Liverpool will benefit from HS2, and to suggest that because Manchester will benefit more it shouldn't be built north of Crewe at all is at best childish nonsense.

It's the same for every coastal location?; half the hinterland/catchment' travel-to-work area is sea! Maybe it was different with Cunard, or coal, or cotton ...
There's something about those 'tribal' rivalries that seem to fuel intemperate exchanges. I long wished world domination could be settled by a game of chess, or best of three, or five ... or maybe baseball, or irony?? but then I'd have had little chance at fisticuffs, even with Marquess of Queensbury 'rules' \o/

 

[tomuk]

Trying not to be too Crayonista but would Sheffield not be served better by a spur line running from a delta junction near the M1\M18 following the course of the M1 towards Tinsley and then the A630 joining the existing line near Darnall. This spur line would serve both trains from London (replacing the MML via Chesterfield) and North to Leeds and York.

 

[6Gman]

In passing I'm surprised (but only a bit) not to see more promotion of Crewe and Doncaster as 'up-and-coming', with 5 trains an hour to London in x minutes ... Spin??

Until 2008 the then Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council and - to a lesser degree - Cheshire County Council was very active promoting Crewe in that way (the high point may have been when an international company got down to a shortlist of two for its European HQ: Lausanne or Crewe. And Crewe won!). Sadly Cheshire East Council has been rather less effective.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Until 2008 the then Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council and - to a lesser degree - Cheshire County Council was very active promoting Crewe in that way (the high point may have been when an international company got down to a shortlist of two for its European HQ: Lausanne or Crewe. And Crewe won!). Sadly Cheshire East Council has been rather less effective.

The problem for Crewe is that it's an abject dump (though it would work as a selling point for the much, much nicer Nantwich even if you'd need to change). You could see it a bit like Luton - a rathole with lots of excellent ways to get out as quickly as possible - but at least Luton has better shopping facilities etc.

I think there would need to be a considerable regeneration project on the rather manky town centre and a lot of new-build (because the existing housing stock isn't up to much either) before you'd really attract people - but it could indeed be a good package as a whole.

 

[cle]

The problem for Crewe is that it's an abject dump (though it would work as a selling point for the much, much nicer Nantwich even if you'd need to change). You could see it a bit like Luton - a rathole with lots of excellent ways to get out as quickly as possible - but at least Luton has better shopping facilities etc.

I think there would need to be a considerable regeneration project on the rather manky town centre and a lot of new-build (because the existing housing stock isn't up to much either) before you'd really attract people - but it could indeed be a good package as a whole.

Doncaster and Preston are similar in their "many ways in each direction to leave" - and rail sense.

At least York, which makes the foursome up, is a great place and destination in itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doncaster and Preston are similar in their "many ways in each direction to leave" - and rail sense.

I don't find Preston anywhere near as nasty as Crewe. It's...OK...average...inoffensive etc

Donny I don't really know.

At least York, which makes the foursome up, is a great place and destination in itself.

York is genuinely lovely and would be a great place to live - very different from Crewe! The railway is an added blessing.

 

[6Gman]

The problem for Crewe is that it's an abject dump (though it would work as a selling point for the much, much nicer Nantwich even if you'd need to change). You could see it a bit like Luton - a rathole with lots of excellent ways to get out as quickly as possible - but at least Luton has better shopping facilities etc.

I think there would need to be a considerable regeneration project on the rather manky town centre and a lot of new-build (because the existing housing stock isn't up to much either) before you'd really attract people - but it could indeed be a good package as a whole.

I can't comment on Luton as I've never been there, but in 2008 Crewe had most of the major retailers, a university campus, the Borough had one of the highest housebuilding (and job creation) rates in the region etc. etc. Hence my comment re Cheshire East's failings since then.

The town centre regeneration is under way (though it may now be too late).

But Crewe is a lot more than the town centre!

 

[The Ham]

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.

Reading may be the extreme example, however Guildford, Farnborough, Basingstoke, etc. all have similar large (although maybe not larger) incoming passenger numbers. As they all sit fairly close to London for those staff who may need to go there, office costs are lower and support staff are easier to employ, so plenty of advantages for companies.

Likewise for the staff they only need to go into London when that's required of them and when they do is paid for them. As such (without the need to use WFH) many benefits for staff.

Not related to the above post, however I don't understand why Liverpool/Manchester tasks up so much time when it comes to HS2, Liverpool may not benefit as much as it could do with a direct line, however they still benefit from reduced journey times and there's still scope for future investment to improve things further (and fairly small in the greater scheme of things).

 

[Bald Rick]

not build the eastern leg at all, but run 2 tph from HS2 part 1 via Derby to Sheffield, using the classic Midland route

How would that work? HS2 ‘part 1’ doesn’t go anywhere near Derby and has no connection to lines to it.

Isn't "Welwyn" actually many separate issues (seven with quick bit of mental arithmetic) in a small area? With 2-3 issues much more soluble than the big ones liek Digswell (I assume the double signalling block on the viaduct is still in place and no longer needed?)

Overall capacity issues are usually combinations of issues e.g. "Welwyn" + Huntingdon-P'boro + Donacaster, with the sum not being the sum of the parts problem wise.

Well, yes.

York is genuinely lovely and would be a great place to live -

It isn’t. Been there, done that. Left.

 

[daodao]

How would that work? HS2 ‘part 1’ doesn’t go anywhere near Derby and has no connection to lines to it.

I was suggesting a connection with the Midland route from Birmingham to Derby near Tamworth, to enable a service to Sheffield via HS2 that should be quicker than the route via Leicester.

 

[tomuk]

I was suggesting a connection with the Midland route from Birmingham to Derby near Tamworth, to enable a service to Sheffield via HS2 that should quicker than the route via Leicester.

How would that work? HS2 ‘part 1’ doesn’t go anywhere near Derby and has no connection to lines to it.

If you built just the first 5km of the eastern leg you would cross the Birmingham to Derby at Kingsbury.

 

[Nottingham59]

How would that work? HS2 ‘part 1’ doesn’t go anywhere near Derby and has no connection to lines to it.

The original plans for HS2 phase 1 (i.e. the one rejoining the ECML at Handsacre) included a turnout onto the Birmingham-Derby line where HS2 crosses it just East of Water Orton. That turnout got dropped from the plans in later iterations.

I remember it distinctly because the proposed track layout had an error such that a train from Curzon Street to Manchester wouldn't have been able to occupy the path on the mainline that had just been used by a train from London to Derby.