HS2 and Liverpool

[Ianno87]

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

But doth not a Business Case make (unless in very, very significant quantity), especially if effectively cross-subsidised.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

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.

… but a port is also there to export goods too

 

[The Ham]

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

Try reading the sections referenced below, as from the report:

Model parameters

6.3.75 The parameters governing the importance of transport costs in the trade model have been derived from the shares of cost in each business sector which are attributable to transport based on data in the UK input-output table for 2010. Table 21 shows the data from the UK input-output tables on which the calculation is based.


6.3.76 We have used this data to estimate the share of costs which are due to road and rail transport in each sector. We have made adjustments to include the value of time and inconvenience in transport by applying an uplift of 100% to transport costs. This

broadly reflects the balance between the financial costs of transport and the

generalised journey costs. We have also made an adjustment for the share of rail and road costs that relate to freight so that the cost shares better reflect the cost of

personal travel by car and rail in these sectors. Table 22 shows the parameters that have been used in the analysis.

 

[notlob.divad]

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.

Correct, they are served by proper long distance intercity services that don't stop at every other village and suburban station. They also continue on to other major destinations which Liverpool has been completely disconnected from. Despite this, every time I have taken this service, or the Virgin service that has overtaken it south of Crewe it has been packed with people's faces squashed against the windows.

 

[B&I]

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)



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)

Where's the evidence that phase 2b to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester adds any benefits to phase 2a, as 'all of the benefits from the frequency enhancement and a fair whack of the journey time benefit' will have been accrued in relation to those cities at phase 2a ? This is the thing about the arguments against Liverpool: the same arguments apply to everywhere else too.

You see, if HS2 Ltd had actually conducted a proper analysis of whether a high speed line to Liverpool was or was not worthwhile, we could be discussing the evidence in respect of the issue. As it is, you've no evidence at all to aupport your views about the relative merits of high speed lines to different destinations.

 

[driver_m]

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.

They are not lightly loaded though. I don't know why you keep repeating that. Until you can produce concrete evidence of this being the case, all the time. Then I'm politely saying your point is wrong. End of.


Incidentally who said Leeds doesn't have a cheap alternative? GC from Bradford. Not same city but near enough for catchment area of many Leeds suburbs. And you can do exact same thing from Manchester as at Liverpool. Cheap ticket to Crewe or Stoke with numerous operators, then jump the LNR from there exactly the same as Liverpool. Liverpool doesn't have a direct service with LNR. It's still a change at Crewe or Stafford..

 

[notlob.divad]

But doth not a Business Case make (unless in very, very significant quantity), especially if effectively cross-subsidised.

Only because in the UK, they refuse to adequately factor in environmental and public health costs when justifying infrastructure projects.

 

[B&I]

Try reading the sections referenced below, as from the report:

Tell.me which paragraph in the report says that the high sensitivity model is in any way based on an assumption that transport costs would double, as I don't see any reference to that there.

 

[Ianno87]

Correct, they are served by proper long distance intercity services that don't stop at every other village and suburban station. They also continue on to other major destinations which Liverpool has been completely disconnected from. Despite this, every time I have taken this service, or the Virgin service that has overtaken it south of Crewe it has been packed with people's faces squashed against the windows.

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.

 

[urbophile]

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

So on this logic we would do without HS2 altogether, scrap all the 'absurdly cheap fares', see the motorways permanently congested and environmental armageddon hastened. Isn't the point of building railway lines to attract people to use them and take them off the roads?

 

[Ianno87]

Only because in the UK, they refuse to adequately factor in environmental and public health costs when justifying infrastructure projects.

They're generally relatively miniscule in the grand scheme of things (though a 775m freight taking 40-odd lorries of the road per day does add up)

 

[Ianno87]

So on this logic we would do without HS2 altogether, scrap all the 'absurdly cheap fares', see the motorways permanently congested and environmental armageddon hastened. Isn't the point of building railway lines to attract people to use them and take them off the roads?

Logic doesn't follow. Most of the network doesn't need to sell cheap fares at peak times to fill trains.

 

[notlob.divad]

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.

Ah yes, the 'Price them off the trains' approach to demand management. So today we have had Altfish admitting that the HS2 approach to Manchester is convoluted and sub-optimal simply to keep the good people of Wilmslow and Alderly Edge having to drive to the next junction on the M56. Now lanno87 thinks the residents of the Liverpool and Birmingham city regions should have their inter-urban public transport priced at levels, unaffordable to the average resident because some of them want to travel to other cities, and the railway shouldn't cater for discretionary travel, at least not for the plebs.

Its funny, how when discussion run about direct trains to Manchester Airport, its the family with 2 kids and 4 suitcase who if made to walk 100m across Piccadilly station, would drive instead, whom suddenly need to be catered for. Whilst the people of Liverpool should just sit on the M6 and like it. The double standards know no bounds on this forum at times.

Funny just checked Manchester to Birmingham and Liverpool to Birmingham prices.... guess which was cheaper.

 

[Ianno87]

Ah yes, the 'Price them off the trains' approach to demand management. So today we have had Altfish admitting that the HS2 approach to Manchester is convoluted and sub-optimal simply to keep the good people of Wilmslow and Alderly Edge having to drive to the next junction on the M56.

Also a number of engineering reasons

Now lanno87 thinks the residents of the Liverpool and Birmingham city regions should have their inter-urban public transport priced at levels, unaffordable to the average resident because some of them want to travel to other cities, and the railway shouldn't cater for discretionary travel, at least not for the plebs.

No I most certainly did not say that. (And certainly suggest I would use the word "pleb" unless you want a lawyer in contact with you)

I was challenging the assertion that demand to Liverpool was high as the LNWR service was busy...when demand on that service is inflated due to its relatively low fares (which I myself have taken advantage of). That is not a good rationale nor what makes a business case for a major infrastructure intervention). That is a fact.

There are other ways of making a good business case for HS to Liverpool which I have been trying so desperately to explain.

 

[Ianno87]

Its funny, how when discussion run about direct trains to Manchester Airport, its the family with 2 kids and 4 suitcase who if made to walk 100m across Piccadilly station, would drive instead, whom suddenly need to be catered for. Whilst the people of Liverpool should just sit on the M6 and like it. The double standards know no bounds on this forum at times.

Nobody is proposing removimg direct train services to Liverpool

Funny just checked Manchester to Birmingham and Liverpool to Birmingham prices.... guess which was cheaper.

What type of fares, time of day, etc....?

 

[PR1Berske]

Nobody is proposing removimg direct train services to Liverpool

Bit what has been said here is "Liverpool can wait, Liverpool doesn't matter, Liverpool is second to Leeds" and nobody can quite say exactly why.

 

[Ianno87]

Bit what has been said here is "Liverpool can wait, Liverpool doesn't matter, Liverpool is second to Leeds" and nobody can quite say exactly why.

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)

 

[driver_m]

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)

If Manchester gets 4 and Liverpool 2. Then how is Liverpool gaining net extra? The 4th service will not terminate at Macc. It will go through to Piccadilly and possibly beyond. i.e. Bolton.

 

[Ianno87]

If Manchester gets 4 and Liverpool 2. Then how is Liverpool gaining net extra? The 4th service will not terminate at Macc. It will go through to Piccadilly and possibly beyond. i.e. Bolton.

Possibly not (but depends on future use of capacity through Stockport - northern stakeholders may have other priorities).

But it wouldn't be a useful service from Manchester, being overtaken by at least one and probably two services running via HS2 throughout. It'd basically be a Bolton-Stoke and a Stoke-Euston service fused together for operational convenience.

Plus, if it ran through every hour (as opposed to just early/late extensions), it'd need extra HS2 rolling stock in the circuit (at least one extra unit) which they may not be willing to pay for.

 

[driver_m]

Possibly not (but depends on future use of capacity through Stockport - northern stakeholders may have other priorities).

But it wouldn't be a useful service from Manchester, being overtaken by at least one and probably two services running via HS2 throughout. It'd basically be a Bolton-Stoke and a Stoke-Euston service fused together for operational convenience.

Plus, if it ran through every hour (as opposed to just early/late extensions), it'd need extra HS2 rolling stock in the circuit (at least one extra unit) which they may not be willing to pay for.

Stock hasn't even been ordered yet. And no one will pay the aame price to use a slower train. Theres already an aspiration to extend current services to at least Bolton once the knitting goes up, so it's never going to get withdrawn, any less than there being no North Wales service on HS2 which will undoubtedly cause outrage in the Welsh assembly. Funny how this doesn't get much mention on here, but it will eventually surface, before the like of Plaid Cymru rightly take huge advantage. Have to say from my own point of view, I think the extra HS2 line into Liverpool just isn't going to happen, because I just can't see where a brand new alignment would be built, but I could very easily see some of the lesser used infrastructure being used better. The low level line to Bank Quay is now virtually unused, the 4 track section is underutilised and needs reconfiguring anyway at Allerton and Edge Hill, so route it into Central as a slightly more radical plan alongside the Merseyrail. retake the road through Garston that once went to Cressington Jn. 4 track that section and take it into a rebuilt Central Station. Get the connections from the city line in there into an extra low level Island platform, and suddenly Liverpool is getting some serious connectivity. Lime St then gets its big release of capacity for new services. Or Winsford-Weaver can be 4 tracked with the main issue being Hartford station. It's not premium speed but it could be easily be 125 for some considerable distance I to Liverpool at a fraction of the cost of a brand new destructive line. (Try getting it ihrough St Helens & Knowsley without causing huge destruction for little to no local benefit)

 

[mmh]

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.

Even with the peak hour trains from Euston having eye-watering fares to Liverpool, and Manchester, they're still full. I often get the 1740 to Manchester as far as Crewe (on an off-peak ticket, going to Llandudno Junction), and a couple of times the Liverpool train, which leaves earlier but arrives later (it's overtaken by the Manchester train) because someone I work with commutes daily from Stafford to London (I think that's insane, but it happens).

Both are full, if anything my rubbish anecdotal "evidence" is the Liverpool train is busier. At least the Liverpool trains stop at Crewe now unlike in the early years of the "VHF" timetable where Liverpool passengers wanting to change at Crewe could take a little commuter EMU and feel grateful knowing it allowed someone to get to London five minutes faster.

That sort of nonsense seems to be what a lot of people on here want to return.

 

[mmh]

Possibly not (but depends on future use of capacity through Stockport - northern stakeholders may have other priorities).

But it wouldn't be a useful service from Manchester, being overtaken by at least one and probably two services running via HS2 throughout. It'd basically be a Bolton-Stoke and a Stoke-Euston service fused together for operational convenience.

It'd be very useful for anyone going from Bolton to Birmingham, or London. What's the point of HS2 again?

I asked yesterday about this supposed "Macclesfield" service and other than the couple of people saying of course you wouldn't terminate there and it really means Manchester via Macc, everything else has seemed like nonsense.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Bit what has been said here is "Liverpool can wait, Liverpool doesn't matter, Liverpool is second to Leeds" and nobody can quite say exactly why.

Try this for size: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_cities_by_GVA

Actually it might be better if you didn't, it contains some uncomfortable truths.

 

[PR1Berske]

Try this for size: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_cities_by_GVA

Actually it might be better if you didn't, it contains some uncomfortable truths.

So we have the ultimate question.

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

 

[Bald Rick]

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?

Two minor points and I’ll retire from the thread.

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.

My bold: that is (almost) exactly what hasn’t happened. The Phase 2b bill has been delayed a year, and that will allow the emerging NPR studies to be taken into account.

Only because in the UK, they refuse to adequately factor in environmental and public health costs when justifying infrastructure projects.

.

That depends what you mean by the term ‘adequately’. If you mean fully account for environmental and public health costs and benefits, along with many other external costs and benefits, as backed up by decades of research (regularly updated), in a methodology which is admired and copied by many other countries around the world, then I’m afraid you are incorrect.

 

[The Planner]

If Manchester gets 4 and Liverpool 2. Then how is Liverpool gaining net extra? The 4th service will not terminate at Macc. It will go through to Piccadilly and possibly beyond. i.e. Bolton.

Will bet cold hard cash that it won't.

It'd be very useful for anyone going from Bolton to Birmingham, or London. What's the point of HS2 again?

I asked yesterday about this supposed "Macclesfield" service and other than the couple of people saying of course you wouldn't terminate there and it really means Manchester via Macc, everything else has seemed like nonsense.

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Part of that is because they aren't that great for actually getting to Birmingham, being slow and somewhat unreliable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

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

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah people just travel 200 miles on a whim.

I certainly do at the incredibly low fares LNR offer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nonsense!

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

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?