Liverpool offers to pay for its own HS2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
Not too interested in HS2 but surprised this hasn't already popped up on here:

Liverpool offers £2bn to be included in HS2 network
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/23/liverpool-offers-2bn-hs2-network
Liverpool has offered to pay £2bn towards the cost of HS2 if the government agrees to add a 20-mile stretch of track that would bring the city into the planned high-speed rail network.
With the £55bn railway proposed to directly link Manchester and Leeds to Birmingham and London, Liverpool’s leaders fear the city will be left behind its counterparts in the north.
Liverpool’s offer would be a long-term repayment commitment – and depend largely on the accompanying devolution of resources normally paid direct to the Treasury, including local employers’ national insurance contributions....
City very much calling the government's bluff here over their not being on the HS2 line with an offer of taking on two thirds of the cost. What will be the government's excuse now? Blows any comparison with the Stoke situation out of the water as couldn't see them being able to rustle up £2bn. Think also raises questions about local contributions elsewhere cannot be right that one city is singled out. Will be interesting to see the reaction to this from all quarters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
906
Not too interested in HS2 but surprised this hasn't already popped up on here:

Liverpool offers £2bn to be included in HS2 network
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/23/liverpool-offers-2bn-hs2-network

City very much calling the government's bluff here over their not being on the HS2 line with an offer of taking on two thirds of the cost. What will be the government's excuse now? Blows any comparison with the Stoke situation out of the water as couldn't see them being able to rustle up £2bn. Think also raises questions about local contributions elsewhere cannot be right that one city is singled out. Will be interesting to see the reaction to this from all quarters.

Not relevant to the OP but just pointing out some sloppy journalism (surely not ?) where at the bottom of the article they state the line to B`ham will be complete in 2016 !!!
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
If it's a no, I think it would basically be an admission there was never a proper reason for it not being in it from the get go, that the government just basically don't want Liverpool connected, end of.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,521
Blows any comparison with the Stoke situation out of the water as couldn't see them being able to rustle up £2bn.

I am not sure how Anderson is able to rustle up £2bn he has spent the last 6 years complaining how the government has taken so much money away the council cannot balance the books. This money from keeping local tax receipts seems to have been spent several times over by now.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
11,206
Bit sketchy but I cant see them getting 20 miles of high speed for 3 billion.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
15,508
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The hint is that it could be part of HS3 (ie west-east via Manchester Airport).
That would put it back in the DfT fold.
Some route via, say, Acton Bridge would do it, with a triangle running on to Crewe or Lostock Gralam to meet HS2.
That might also give you a Man Airport western exit.
That is if HS3 runs via Man Airport.
 

David Emmott

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
866
Joe Anderson is probably paying for it out of his own pocket! I can never understand how money always seems to be popping up despite the cuts.

Is this like his scheme for building a railway station on the site of the former Archbishop Blanch school (i.e. a small brownfield site where a station could be built reasonably close to the University and Royal Hospital, with the slight disadvantage that it is nowhere near a railway line)? I wouldn't take this proposal seriously unless somebody comes up with some plans and some idea of the route this would take. And ending up in (an albeit slightly enlarged) Lime Street? Only if the local routes were diverted down the Waterloo tunnel, which would be a good idea but there have been no concrete proposals so far.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,521
Joe Anderson is probably paying for it out of his own pocket! I can never understand how money always seems to be popping up despite the cuts.

Is this like his scheme for building a railway station on the site of the former Archbishop Blanch school (i.e. a small brownfield site where a station could be built reasonably close to the University and Royal Hospital, with the slight disadvantage that it is nowhere near a railway line)? I wouldn't take this proposal seriously unless somebody comes up with some plans and some idea of the route this would take. And ending up in (an albeit slightly enlarged) Lime Street? Only if the local routes were diverted down the Waterloo tunnel, which would be a good idea but there have been no concrete proposals so far.

Archbishop Blanch is on top of the Waterloo Tunnels so diverting local trains down there and the idea of a new station on the site are one and the same proposal, the bigger question is where do the trains go? Burrowing to Central a la the Edge Hill Spur scheme, would allow through running to Southport, Ormskirk, or over to Chester and New Brighton, but would have a huge cost in itself. You could burrow from the Waterloo tunnel to the North Side of Lime Street, less burrowing so less costly, but have you haven't really gained a lot.

As for the HS2 link, Lime Street as a station would need lengthening beyond what is feasible to accommodate the 400m long captive platforms, which is why a rebuilt Exchange station or even a rebuilt and renamed 'Birkenhead Woodside' are probably the more likely final destinations.

I honestly think Anderson is calling the Governments bluff. If he has the £2Bil (and it is a big if) he could achieve most of the Merseyrail expansion plans. When the government / HS2 Ltd / whoever say no, he can point to it as a political decision by people with vested interests outside the city region. What money he may have can then be pushed into local expansion in smaller stages. The issue will be if they call him out, at which point he suddenly has to find the money or admit he doesn't have it. This will kill off any other expansion plans and a lot more besides.

This offer is Joe playing with the big boys, whatever the outcome it is unlikely to change the prospects of an HS2 captive line making its way to Liverpool anytime soon.
 

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
1,803
Location
Humberside
It was stupid not to have Liverpool on the main HS2 route.
How many HS2 trains will go there everyday?
It's only a short section from Crewe which is needed.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
24,024
Location
Scotland
If it's that short, which it is, what's wrong with running classic compatible trains through on the classic line?
That's what the £2B will probably get you - a much improved classic line with new stations to handle longer classic compatible trains.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
11,206
Liverpool gets a classic compatible anyway, any line upgrades to accomodate that would be paid for by HS2 anyway.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
The total cost is £3bn, the £2bn is an offer to pay for most of it. Cost seems about right based on the other project costs.

Having listened carefully to the debate, I think there are serious shortcomings over the classic compatible service on frequency, destinations, journey time, capacity, line space and so on. I think the biggest shortcoming has been that of HS2 themselves though, where had they bigged up these classic compatible services as much as the main ones in the first place then there would be little distinction drawn between them and maybe Liverpool would already be considered a proper beneficiary. So much effort was put into heralding those few cities with their wonderful new links with no thought or care for what that would do to the places without, particularly places with vulnerable competitive positions. Too late for any of this now though. If any of this is now a problem for the government then it's all their own doing.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If it's that short, which it is, what's wrong with running classic compatible trains through on the classic line?
Same could be said for your Manchester branch.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
65,591
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Same could be said for your Manchester branch.

Indeed it could, and you might be aware from previous threads that I think the business case for *any* of HS2 to be be built north of Birmingham is at best weak (the bit with the viable business case is the southern section, to effectively act as a third pair of "super-fast" lines for the overcrowded south WCML). However, Manchester is a far more important city than Liverpool, having almost surpassed Birmingham as England's second city, so if it's going anywhere it probably makes sense to be there.

And I'm born a Scouser, so this is nothing about having a bee in my bonnet about Liverpool. Just facts, as amply demonstrated by the 3tph to Manchester and 1tph to Liverpool on the WCML at present.

As for building a railway just to make a point, I couldn't possibly support such a waste of public money.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
The argument about being a "far more important city" is fatuous, it only serves or served only a short term purpose. If you instil strengths in one particular place, do you then use that to always deny somewhere else the same sorts of chances to likewise improve? If so then what is this whole Northern Powerhouse, power to the north, set of policies about. By that token Manchester deserves nothing because London is far more successful than Manchester, by a factor of at least 10, not just a debatable x 1.7 (which in reality is just £ for £ per person).

If you were to assume for a moment that HS2 would be economically advantageous, then there is logically every reason to build it into Liverpool, regardless of Manchester's current comparative success. Why not have two very successful cities in the north after all.

I understand your doubts about the underlying assumption of HS2's effectiveness though, but the principle remains. And if people in charge believe it would be economically advantageous, then it's up to them to pursue whatever policies they feel are right.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,521
If it's that short, which it is, what's wrong with running classic compatible trains through on the classic line?

Where to start?
1. Classic compatible will have fewer seats than the current pendalino trains serving Lime Street.
2. Classic Compatible trains will run slower on classic lines than current Pendalinos
3. Current allocation plans give LCR a 2nd hourly Euston service via Stafford meaning that it will spend more than 1/2 the journey time on classic lines travelling slower than the current trains.
4. LCR has no allocated HS service to Birmingham.
5. Simply 30minutes travel time.
Summary: Despite an almost identical population to the Leeds City region, LiverpoolCR doesn't get captive trains, has fewer HS trains to London/hour has no HS trains to Birmingham and has fewer seats on each train it gets meaning that whilst contributing similar per head of population through the tax system gaining significantly fewer benefits.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
65,591
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
1. Classic compatible will have fewer seats than the current pendalino trains serving Lime Street.

How do you know that? The specification for them has not yet been drawn up, let alone any been built.

2. Classic Compatible trains will run slower on classic lines than current Pendalinos

Who is to say the work won't be done to make the line 125mph no tilt? But be aware that the Pretendolino typically lost just two minutes for the 50 miles or thereabouts from Euston to MKC by travelling at 110mph with far inferior acceleration to a Pendolino. Liverpool to Crewe is less than that distance by some margin. You are bothered about *one and a half minutes*?

3. Current allocation plans give LCR a 2nd hourly Euston service via Stafford meaning that it will spend more than 1/2 the journey time on classic lines travelling slower than the current trains.

So? It's a second semifast service. What's the problem with that? Take the fast one if it bothers you.

4. LCR has no allocated HS service to Birmingham.

If two 4-car EMUs an hour just about cope with demand, why is one justified?

5. Simply 30minutes travel time.

I'm not convinced that a high-speed line would cause the service to be 30 minutes quicker over that short distance. Ten minutes perhaps. Is it worth that money for ten minutes?

Summary: Despite an almost identical population to the Leeds City region, LiverpoolCR doesn't get captive trains, has fewer HS trains to London/hour has no HS trains to Birmingham and has fewer seats on each train it gets meaning that whilst contributing similar per head of population through the tax system gaining significantly fewer benefits.

"Not fair".
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
How do you know that? The specification for them has not yet been drawn up, let alone any been built.
Assumptions were published, HS2 said that the classic trains and the normal ones will have the same amount of seats in them, and it is considerably fewer than a standard Virgin train. I gather this issue was why initially they were going to get longer intermediate sized trains (280 metres?), but that has since been dropped in favour of just the 200 metre trains, which is obviously shorter than a Pendolino.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
65,591
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Assumptions were published, HS2 said that the classic trains and the normal ones will have the same amount of seats in them, and it is considerably fewer than a standard Virgin train. I gather this issue was why initially they were going to get longer intermediate sized trains (280 metres?), but that has since been dropped in favour of just the 200 metre trains, which is obviously shorter than a Pendolino.

By a whole 7m if it's a 9-car one.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,521
How do you know that? The specification for them has not yet been drawn up, let alone any been built.
Simple mathematics. Number of seats you can cram into a 289m train vs number of seats that you can cram in a 200m train fitting through the same cross sectional area.

Who is to say the work won't be done to make the line 125mph no tilt? But be aware that the Pretendolino typically lost just two minutes for the 50 miles or thereabouts from Euston to MKC by travelling at 110mph with far inferior acceleration to a Pendolino. Liverpool to Crewe is less than that distance by some margin. You are bothered about *one and a half minutes*?
There are currently no plans and given the cost of working on running lines will cost more than the HS extension.

So? It's a second semifast service. What's the problem with that? Take the fast one if it bothers you.
As I pointed out above there will be fewer seats so taking the 'faster' one will be more difficult than currently which is already difficult at busy times.
If two 4-car EMUs an hour just about cope with demand, why is one justified?
To maximise the potential return on the investment that is HS2. Capacity will be available north of Birmingham due to the spliting of the tracks there and the bias of services towards London. Maximising the use of the HS tracks for intercity passenger services will open up more possibilities for freight services and stopping services serving intermediate stations.

I'm not convinced that a high-speed line would cause the service to be 30 minutes quicker over that short distance. Ten minutes perhaps. Is it worth that money for ten minutes?
Funny, because that is the expected time difference to Manchester which goes exactly the same route to Crewe but has captive track to the city centre instead of the classic tracks to Liverpool

"Not fair".
I have wasted far too much of my life 'debating' or at least attempting to debate with the knd of people who produce childish responses such as this to learn my lesson.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,082
The HS2 classic-compatibles will have 550 seats in a 200m train, which is not far off the 589 in an 11-car Pendolino.

Remember that at the moment, all ICWC services serve intermediate stations. Capacity on Liverpool trains has to be used up by people going to/from Milton Keynes, etc. Since intermediate calls will be very few and far between on HS2, more seats will be available for people going to Liverpool Lime Street from Euston than there are today.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,521
In general Milton Keynes is served by the Manchester and Chester trains which need to get bums on seats. Only 3 a day at obscure times call from Liverpool.

Liverpool calls at Crewe and Stafford, current plans have a doubling of shorter (fewer seat) trains alternating. Trains via Stafford will remain on classic lines to Lichfield thus won't run on high speed lines for more than 1/2 the time they are moving. No one is saying Liverpool doesn't get some benefit under current plans, but most of those are served up in phase 1 and as a region it looses out with respect to other regions once phase 2 come online.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
The HS2 classic-compatibles will have 550 seats in a 200m train, which is not far off the 589 in an 11-car Pendolino.

Remember that at the moment, all ICWC services serve intermediate stations. Capacity on Liverpool trains has to be used up by people going to/from Milton Keynes, etc. Since intermediate calls will be very few and far between on HS2, more seats will be available for people going to Liverpool Lime Street from Euston than there are today.
Trains call at Runcorn, Crewe and Stafford. HS2 have the same calling pattern bar one of the trains which doesn't call at Stafford. Also don't they add a station at Old Oak Common? Probably not relevant, but anyway in material terms the existing trains already have a near optimal calling pattern. I gather from one of the other forums that one of these calls may already be going, as some trains may have a journey time of two hours.

I make 589 minus 550 a difference of 39, so not an inconsiderable reduction especially when talking about trains services with growth and a timespan of many years, which you'd expect to mean more not less being needed.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,385
Location
Salt & Vinegar
Trains call at Runcorn, Crewe and Stafford. HS2 have the same calling pattern bar one of the trains which doesn't call at Stafford. Also don't they add a station at Old Oak Common? Probably not relevant, but anyway in material terms the existing trains already have a near optimal calling pattern. I gather from one of the other forums that one of these calls may already be going, as some trains may have a journey time of two hours.

I make 589 minus 550 a difference of 39, so not an inconsiderable reduction especially when talking about trains services with growth and a timespan of many years, which you'd expect to mean more not less being needed.

Worth remembering that the service pattern used in the HS2 business case is purely indicative and may not reflect proposed or actual services.

While Liverpool should of course continue pushing for a full High Speed approach to the city, a more valuable approach may be to continue lobbying for an enhanced service on HS2 using Classic Compatibles.

Particularly worth noting that the business case for HS2 kept 2 paths free for Heathrow services that are no longer required so can be redeployed elsewhere.

The development of Crewe as a 400m long HS compatible interchange gives additional potential for more 400m classic compatible services to split/join at Crewe without using additional paths.

So if I were lobbying on behalf of Liverpool I'd be asking for:
  • Work between Crewe and Liverpool to maximise 125mph running for non tilting HS stock.
  • Stafford stops dropped from Liverpool services to ensure maximum usage of HS2. Stafford services could be provided by an additional classic compatible Manchester service that also serves Stoke, Macclesfield and Stockport.
  • 3tph London classic compatible service to Lime Street. 1tph non stop, 2tph stopping Crewe and Runcorn only.
  • This 3tph can be created without using paths by splitting / joining 1tph at Crewe with the proposed Preston starter that serves Wigan and Warrington allowing Scottish services to only call at Preston.
  • Propose the additional Crewe stopper split /join with a Chester service to maximise the benefits to the Liverpool City Region.
  • 1tph service to Birmingham. Split and join at Crewe with a 1tph Scotland - Birmingham service.

That would be a realistic plan with low infrastructure costs, positive working across the region with additional services for a wide variety of destinations, maximising usage of the HS2 infrastructure investment.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,385
Location
Salt & Vinegar
The demand for this simply does not exist.

Maybe not but to justify £3Bn infrastructure investment you're going to have to make the case for demand first.

So if Liverpool is serious about developing the new line proposal then firstly they need to lobby for increased services, or at least for ensuring space is kept for those services in a future operating plan.

A 3tph Classic compatible service is a more realistic demand than a full new line. If a 3tph service can be created and demand builds up then a new line could be examined.

If demand doesn't exist then it can be cut back to 2tph.

My point was that this was a more realistic lobbying plan for Liverpool than demanding a new line. Same as Stoke Council should be banging the drum of a Classic Compatible service continuing to serve Stoke (and Macclesfield/Stockport) in Phase 2 instead of fighting to secure an unrealistic HS routing via Stoke.
 

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
587
Location
Munich
My point was that this was a more realistic lobbying plan for Liverpool than demanding a new line.

In purely HS2 terms perhaps, but the question is now both HS2 and 'HS3'/NPR for any dedicated Liverpool link. As far as I know the basic HS2 situation may well have changed in the last 6 or so years with new assumptions on freight volumes linked to the new Liverpool2 port. The HS3/NPR aspect is politically helpful in that it could be paid for out of a different budget to HS2 and thus avoid handing ammunition to the anti's complaining of scope creep / budget explosion.

All of which is rather better to argue on than the childish "they've got one so I want one as well"
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,521
So if I were lobbying on behalf of Liverpool I'd be asking for:
  • Work between Crewe and Liverpool to maximise 125mph running for non tilting HS stock.
  • Stafford stops dropped from Liverpool services to ensure maximum usage of HS2. Stafford services could be provided by an additional classic compatible Manchester service that also serves Stoke, Macclesfield and Stockport.
  • 3tph London classic compatible service to Lime Street. 1tph non stop, 2tph stopping Crewe and Runcorn only.
  • This 3tph can be created without using paths by splitting / joining 1tph at Crewe with the proposed Preston starter that serves Wigan and Warrington allowing Scottish services to only call at Preston.
  • Propose the additional Crewe stopper split /join with a Chester service to maximise the benefits to the Liverpool City Region.
  • 1tph service to Birmingham. Split and join at Crewe with a 1tph Scotland - Birmingham service.

I feel this is where it will end up. Possibly a case of asking for a mile to ensure you get the yard.
Just one modification to your stopping plan. Instead of both the none stop trains going Runcorn Crewe, one should go Via (possibly a St.Helens Stop) WBQ and Crewe. The Preston train it joins to could then continue to Blackpool but omit its WBQ stop so it can run on the faster line around Warrington. You get Blackpool - Preston - Wigan and Lpool - St.Hel - Warrington Joining together at Crewe.
I would also propose similar with the Birmingham train.

Chester will need wires before it can get any HS service not impossible but not in current plans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top