Liverpool offers to pay for its own HS2

[Holly]

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, ...

The case for building the Lichfield-Crewe section is overwhelming.
Even if it is less clear beyond that.

 

[HSTEd]

I am all for a captive line to Liverpool.

But I doubt their ability to actually find £2bn to pay for it with such a small tax base.

Additionally I doubt whether the treasury will put up even one billion for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The case for building the Lichfield-Crewe section is overwhelming.

I don't agree; the line is not full. The case is very weak compared to other transport improvements the money could be spent on.

In my view what is needed is a Swiss or German-style Neubaustrecke from Euston (or thereabouts) to Brum and the Trent Valley (or thereabouts) to free up capacity on the south WCML. It need only use classic compatible stock and would serve the existing, expanded if necessary, Euston and New St stations. It would effectively be the same as 6-tracking the WCML, with the new "fasts" being faster than the existing ones.

The French LGV approach has far fewer benefits.

 

[The Planner]

There are currently no plans and given the cost of working on running lines will cost more than the HS extension.

It hasn't been ruled out at all and is still being considered.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't agree; the line is not full. The case is very weak compared to other transport improvements the money could be spent on.

It is not full now, the forecasts for 2043 have it filling up.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The case for building the Lichfield-Crewe section is overwhelming.
Even if it is less clear beyond that.

You have your fantasy that Crewe will be a terminus and people will switch from classic-compatibles onto captive trains there, but it's never going to happen. The line north of Crewe is necessary because you can't run InterCity services like that into Manchester forever. The VHF timetable reducing the number of local services to Stockport isn't much of a problem if people can use the Virgin services instead, but they're not going to be able to do that with the HS2 classic-compatibles.

I don't agree; the line is not full. The case is very weak compared to other transport improvements the money could be spent on.

In my view what is needed is a Swiss or German-style Neubaustrecke from Euston (or thereabouts) to Brum and the Trent Valley (or thereabouts) to free up capacity on the south WCML. It need only use classic compatible stock and would serve the existing, expanded if necessary, Euston and New St stations. It would effectively be the same as 6-tracking the WCML, with the new "fasts" being faster than the existing ones.

The French LGV approach has far fewer benefits.

No, because that would cost the same to build as HS2, without the cost ever being justified by reducing journey times and boosting the economy as a result. This idea was rejected a very long time ago.

 

[Camden]

You have your fantasy that Crewe will be a terminus and people will switch from classic-compatibles onto captive trains there, but it's never going to happen. The line north of Crewe is necessary because you can't run InterCity services like that into Manchester forever. The VHF timetable reducing the number of local services to Stockport isn't much of a problem if people can use the Virgin services instead, but they're not going to be able to do that with the HS2 classic-compatibles.

VHF seems very troublesome, and already today there is debate as to whether Manchester really needs so many seats. The classic trains will be able to be coupled up just as the full high speed ones can, and so a solution to all this could be to do just that and reduce the frequency to two an hour, one via Wilmslow and the other via Crewe. Do the same for Birmingham, and you have increased capacity for both passengers and other services, and saved several billions.

 

[work-traveller]

Blows any comparison with the Stoke situation out of the water as couldn't see them being able to rustle up £2bn.

Reading the Guardian article, it’s clear that Liverpool neither has the £2bn or any solid plan for getting it.

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.

In short - 'you fund our request now and we'll try and rustle up our promised contribution at an unspecified point in the future'. Wouldn't be surprised if the DfT/Treasury response is a polite 'thanks, but no thanks'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, because that would cost the same to build as HS2, without the cost ever being justified by reducing journey times and boosting the economy as a result. This idea was rejected a very long time ago.

It's essentially what the first phase (London-Brum) is. My contention is that that is all that should ever be built.

 

[Camden]

Reading the Guardian article, it’s clear that Liverpool neither has the £2bn or any solid plan for getting it.

In short - 'you fund our request now and we'll try and rustle up our promised contribution at an unspecified point in the future'. Wouldn't be surprised if the DfT/Treasury response is a polite 'thanks, but no thanks'.

This is no different than the sorts of funding arrangements seen in other cities already, especially Manchester, where funding for large projects has come on the basis of increased future and/or devolved receipts, rather than money up front. The only thing that varies on this one is the name of one of the taxes involved.

 

[work-traveller]

This is no different than the sorts of funding arrangements seen in other cities already, especially Manchester, where funding for large projects has come on the basis of increased future and/or devolved receipts, rather than money up front. The only thing that varies on this one is the name of one of the taxes involved.

I guess so. The acid test will be if the DfT can be convinced of the merit of the proposal in it's own terms and if the DfT believes that Liverpool has a realistic prospect of raising the funds. Perhaps the first stage is a cast iron assurance that a spur to Liverpool is safeguarded in what will be built beforehand.

 

[Camden]

I guess so. The acid test will be if the DfT can be convinced of the merit of the proposal in it's own terms and if the DfT believes that Liverpool has a realistic prospect of raising the funds. Perhaps the first stage is a cast iron assurance that a spur to Liverpool is safeguarded in what will be built beforehand.

Whether the funds can be raised or not isn't in any question, it's all been worked out and costed. Whether the line itself can pay its own way is also worked out and costed, as a positive addition to HS2. This is all the premise of the report, where the statement is in effect "we know it will turn a profit, so sure that we will take on the risk", in the form of those devolved funds.

The acid test will simply be whether the government want it to happen or not. Which I think has been the reality all along and which I suspect teasing this truth out into the open the real aim, rather than any attempt to actually secure a HS2 line.

 

[work-traveller]

Whether the funds can be raised or not isn't in any question, it's all been worked out and costed. Whether the line itself can pay its own way is also worked out and costed, as a positive addition to HS2. This is all the premise of the report, where the statement is in effect "we know it will turn a profit, so sure that we will take on the risk", in the form of those devolved funds.

The acid test will simply be whether the government want it to happen or not. Which I think has been the reality all along and which I suspect teasing this truth out into the open the real aim, rather than any attempt to actually secure a HS2 line.

That's gratifying to know. I look forward to hearing an appropriately positive response from the DfT and Treasury in due course then.

 

[Camden]

That's gratifying to know. I look forward to hearing an appropriately positive response from the DfT and Treasury in due course then.

I suppose it depends on what your view of "positive" would be. Regardless of it being fully costed and risk deferred to the city I doubt that the DfT will be saying yes to it. If you can make mileage out of that response, then I suppose you could call that positive.

 

[Chester1]

I suppose it depends on what your view of "positive" would be. Regardless of it being fully costed and risk deferred to the city I doubt that the DfT will be saying yes to it. If you can make mileage out of that response, then I suppose you could call that positive.

In the current political climate the offer will have to be taken seriously, even if that only means a counter proposal that Liverpool Council is unlikely to accept. Another option would be borrowing money from the treasury and receiving a share of the revenue of the extension. As a born and bred Merseysider who still lives nearby, I don't like the assumption that the Tories actively dislike Liverpool or the north. The truth is the Tories are indifferent to it and Liverpool has struggled to adapt to or even accept that the future is a small but high tech industry with most of the economy being service based. Osborne is likely to look favourably on proposals that are very low risk for the treasury and that are buying into the Northern Powerhouse. He isn't against a HS2 link to Liverpool, he sees it as a low priority. Some kind of local funding / risk sharing could easily tip the balance. Crossrail is 60% funded by TfL for instance.

 

[Camden]

You might not like the concept of being on the receiving end of less than favourable treatment, but your overlords hardly go out of their way to prove they're doing otherwise. What is "indifference" versus the potential on offer if not "dislike"? The Liverpool area cannot get by on a small economy, but also nor should it have to.

 

[Chester1]

You might not like the concept of being on the receiving end of less than favourable treatment, but your overlords hardly go out of their way to prove they're doing otherwise. What is "indifference" versus the potential on offer if not "dislike"? The Liverpool area cannot get by on a small economy, but also nor should it have to.

The difference between disliking and indifference is the ability to neogiate agreements. Manchester has decided to buy into Osbornes agenda rather than complain about poor treatment. Liverpool council seems to be finally moving in that direction, it needs to put aside political ideology and history and instead find the common ground between their and George Osbornes goals. If the Tories actually disliked them in the way that most scousers seem to believe then a deal wouldnt be possible, but it is. George Osborne wont turn down a deal that benefits the government and has little risk. I am not sure Liverpool Council is prepared to take on suffiecient risk to make it worthwhile for Osborne, its certainly possible though.

 

[Camden]

I think that is a little naive. You don't need to look too hard to find examples where it is clear you'd have to go very far before negotiation with government was actually off the table. This isn't about like or dislike, though, which you seem to have read into this yourself, but about a deliberate spatial policy which sees Manchester invested in and Liverpool not. You are partially right that Manchester is skilled in negotiating deals, but this isn't talking about something that one has negotiated and the other hasn't. HS2 was always going to Manchester and never going to Liverpool, it's very basic stuff. Manchester isn't buying into Osborne's agenda, but simply benefiting from being the lucky chosen one and doing all it can to stay that way.

Should the answer come back as "no", as I expect it will, maybe we can carry on the conversation then. In terms of Liverpool council taking on risk, the spending of £2bn of devolved funds on this is already as risky as you could possibly get.

 

[notlob.divad]

Isn't the elephant in the room on this subject a, the alignment and b the terminus nature of Manchester' HS station. A lot of the 20MM campaign and this more recent report by Republica has been based around the increased BCR by a HS link to Liverpool being the start of any HS3 (Whatever name that is going under these days) link across the Pennines. With the current alignments and the insistence of serving Piccadilly and the Airport, any HS3 route between Liverpool and Manchester has already been compromised, by the roundabout route it will have to take east of the spine, and the need for any service to reverse at Piccadilly before continuing on.

Surely an alignment that branches off the spine a bit further north and goes into the Manchester tunnel somewhere near Carrington or Chat Moss to a through Manchester station would be much better for future plans. This would not only reduce the times West-East but also potential expansion northwards from Manchester to Scotland.

I appreciate the costs of creating a through station in Manchester would be higher, but the benefits of doing so with the possibilities of future plans must surely be of significant benefit. I am sure a similar case can be made on the Eastern branch too, whilst a North-South terminus alignment might be great for trains South to Birmingham, London and possibly even Manchester if this new Cross Pennines tunnel joins between Sheffield and Leeds put a Delta junction in it does nothing to help with connections from Leeds further North or East. Basically the approved routes of the connections to the two captive northern termini have been designed in such a way that it compromises the business case for future developments and other surrounding cities getting a link.

 

[Camden]

Not really. While there are details to sort out certainly, it's always been an issue not just for trains from Liverpool but also heading the other way to Leeds and Sheffield too.

Think this discussion about what to do about that belongs in a different area, I created this one specifically to talk about Liverpool's £2bn offer and ensuing politics. The offer is to cover a spur from Liverpool to the high speed two main line, not carry on all the way into Manchester, which is just cherry on the top.

 

[Class 170101]

VHF seems very troublesome, and already today there is debate as to whether Manchester really needs so many seats. The classic trains will be able to be coupled up just as the full high speed ones can, and so a solution to all this could be to do just that and reduce the frequency to two an hour, one via Wilmslow and the other via Crewe. Do the same for Birmingham, and you have increased capacity for both passengers and other services, and saved several billions.

Surely the Wilmslow train runs via Crewe?

Do you mean an hourly Manchester to London WCML service via Crewe and a secondly hourly service via Macclesfield?

 

[notlob.divad]

Not really. While there are details to sort out certainly, it's always been an issue not just for trains from Liverpool but also heading the other way to Leeds and Sheffield too.

Think this discussion about what to do about that belongs in a different area, I created this one specifically to talk about Liverpool's £2bn offer and ensuing politics. The offer is to cover a spur from Liverpool to the high speed two main line, not carry on all the way into Manchester, which is just cherry on the top.

I think there is a tangible link to your topic, in that the Republica report that accompanies that points out that the alignment is sub-optimal for the Liverpool business case and yet still finds that a Liverpool HS link would have a positive business case with the current alignment. I think it adds to the argument that if, (and it looks like it has) the offer is declined, the powers that be are hellbent on sticking with their current plans irrespective of any evidence against it.