We need High speed Rail, but Is HS2 really Needed?

[B&I]

In the past you quoted it started that the Liverpool City region would (regardless of growth rate) would benefit, as such if there are any job losses (which there may also not be but you are ignoring because it doesn't fit with your narrative) then there will be more jobs created within the city region than list within the city.

That may mean that people have to travela bit for work, which will have some impact on their quality of life, but won't leave then withouta job at all.

If HS2 created a risk of economic shrinkage in other core cities, would you still support it ? If not, why is it fair that Liverpool suffers that risk so that other cities can grow their economies ?

 

[The Ham]

Again, I assume all of you will cheerfully tell everyone who loses jobs and income that -0.7% of the economy is not a significant amount. I wonder if you'd be ao blasé if it was your job, or your income under threat. Still, treating people's lives as 'rounding errors' is standard operating procedure in modern Britain, then we wonder why so much of the population are so bitter and disenchanted.

Suggesting that, the more successful HS2 is, the more Liverpool.will suffer, is an interesting new argument. Doesn't that suggest that, as a means of improving economic performance across the country, HS2 is maybe a teensy weensy bit flawed ?

I could be reading the table wrong, but no one has said that and I'm willing to be corrected if that is the case.

The reason that the better HS2 does the worse the result for Liverpool could be that there are less available seats from the likes of Crewe (or places which connect to HS2 at Crewe) and so it becomes harder for people to/from Liverpool to get a seat. As well as possibly demand being such that trains are diverted from Liverpool services to serve other locations.

That would then mean that a new HS line to Liverpool would bea good thing to build so that Liverpool can have 400m trains and the services could skip other stations.

It could also mean the building ofa Eastern HS line to remove the need for the Leeds services to use HS2 freeing up paths from HS2.

As I've said on a few occasions I could be reading the table wrong

 

[B&I]

My reading of the table is that it will only shrink if HS2 it's in the high growth figure, as such your argument is:

HS2 risks people's jobs

This is the case when HS2 has lots of passengers (assuming that I'm reading the table right)

We should therefore not build HS2


Can you see why I am struggling to take your concern as a serious issue; in that if HS2 does well and justifies being built, which is when it harms Liverpool, then we shouldn't have built HS2.

However it should be noted that in such a high growth case then the case for the Liverpool extension improves and therefore is more likely to happen. Which is what you want to happen.

Please don't let what I have actually said get in the way of a good argument.

I will repeat, for the third time, that I am in favour of as much railway being built, everywhere, as the country needs, because I want to see a huge modal shift from road to rail. I am not against high speed rail, but I am critical of HS2 as planned. Is that clear ?

Now, it seems to me that the people who are against railway expansion are people like you, because if you weren't you'd be arguing for a high speed line to be built the whole way to Liverpool. Instead, you are spending quite extraordinary amounts of time and energy trying to convince me that Liverpool should be content with inferior infrastructure, and either economic shrinkage, or less growth than other places which HS2 serves properly.

I suppose you'll say something about having to draw the line somewhere. But why there ? It would cost a fraction of the overall project price to build a high speed line to Liverpool, by far the largest conurbation in England that won't have one, and also the closest conurbation to the trunk line not to be served. The city even offered to go into debt to pay for it itself, and that was turned down too.

I see that you have repeated the strange argument that Liverpool stands to lose out more if HS2 is a success. Doesn't that just emphasise how ineffective HS2 risks being as a way of reducing economic disparity ? Think about it, and you will see why I'm struggling to take your position seriously.

I see that you also repeat the assertion that HS2 makes a high speed line to Liverpool more likely. (Yet) again I will remind you that there is no definitive plan, no funding, and no enabling legislation for any high speed line to Liverpool. If HS2 makes it such an inevitability, why don't they just finish the job and build it ? Haven't they already admitted that Liverpool services will be the most crowded from the day HS2 opens, suggesting it has a need for more / more capacious services ? If it's so vitally necessary to the economic health of the nation that a high speed line is not built to Liverpool now, what's going to change at any point in the future which will make it more likely ?

 

[The Ham]

If HS2 created a risk of economic shrinkage in other core cities, would you still support it ? If not, why is it fair that Liverpool suffers that risk so that other cities can grow their economies ?

Let's turn this the other way around, will every single Street in Manchester benefit from HS2?

Almost certainly not, different Streets will benefit in different amounts.

Now let's answer your question, will the whole of 2 million people in the Liverpool City region benefit? No.

Will there be some who will now have to travel to work because their Street looses out? Yes.

Will that mean that they are worse off? If everything else is equal then yes, but it could be that they end up in a better job and so are better off (given the city region will benefit regardless of which column is used).

As such the likely overall picture is positive and Liverpool may be positive anyway even without looking to the rest of the city region.

 

[B&I]

I could be reading the table wrong, but no one has said that and I'm willing to be corrected if that is the case.

The reason that the better HS2 does the worse the result for Liverpool could be that there are less available seats from the likes of Crewe (or places which connect to HS2 at Crewe) and so it becomes harder for people to/from Liverpool to get a seat. As well as possibly demand being such that trains are diverted from Liverpool services to serve other locations.

That would then mean that a new HS line to Liverpool would bea good thing to build so that Liverpool can have 400m trains and the services could skip other stations.

It could also mean the building ofa Eastern HS line to remove the need for the Leeds services to use HS2 freeing up paths from HS2.

As I've said on a few occasions I could be reading the table wrong

I thought the differences in prospective results were based on different assumptions about the sensitivity of business to rail connectivity, and the higher its senstivity, the more chance there was of Liverpool losing out (because HS2 improves its connectivity, already nearly the worst of any major British city, less than it does that of other places). As we are told that one of the reasons why HS2 is being built is because rail connectivity will improve economic growth, that would suggest to me that either that underlying assumption is wrong, or that Liverpool is likely to do worse rather than better out of HS2 as planned

 

[B&I]

Let's turn this the other way around, will every single Street in Manchester benefit from HS2?

Almost certainly not, different Streets will benefit in different amounts.

Now let's answer your question, will the whole of 2 million people in the Liverpool City region benefit? No.

Will there be some who will now have to travel to work because their Street looses out? Yes.

Will that mean that they are worse off? If everything else is equal then yes, but it could be that they end up in a better job and so are better off (given the city region will benefit regardless of which column is used).

As such the likely overall picture is positive and Liverpool may be positive anyway even without looking to the rest of the city region.

Let's turn the question around to look at the evidence again. Liverpool is the only city with an HS2 'service' which, according to HS2's own consultants, is at risk of economic shrinkage when HS2 is completed. Of course not every single person in every other city with an HS2 service will benefit. But there is no other city which is predicted to be at risk of economic shrinkage when HS2 is completed. You can spin and spin as much as you like, but you cannot escape how Liverpool compares to every other city served by HS2, according to HS2's own consultants

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Now let's answer your question, will the whole of 2 million people in the Liverpool City region benefit? No.

This figure of 2 million, quoted a number of times by B&I, is completely spurious. The actual population, as provided by the official Liverpool City Region website, is 1.52 million. The higher number is only possible by including Chester, Warrington and Wigan as part of "Greater Liverpool". You will struggle to find many residents of those places who would agree with that idea. Indeed it is difficult to imagine how any of those residents would have any interest in whether or not HS2 serves Liverpool (whichever definition you choose) since their access to HS2 will be via other places.

Given that B&I's whole argument started with such a distortion (a 33% exageration) there seems little point in having an evidence based discussion with them. That leaves just an emotional one which I would suggest has been clearly shown to be the case.

 

[The Ham]

Please don't let what I have actually said get in the way of a good argument.

I will repeat, for the third time, that I am in favour of as much railway being built, everywhere, as the country needs, because I want to see a huge modal shift from road to rail. I am not against high speed rail, but I am critical of HS2 as planned. Is that clear ?

I understand that you are critical of HS2, but the problem is that there's a lot of people who would agree with you that HS2 is bad and so don't want any HS lines built.

The problem with building HS lines to Liverpool as part of the basic package is that it pushes the costs for HS2 higher. As such you will get more people saying that we are spending too much money on it and something else should happen.

As such the end result is that HS lines to Liverpool is less likely to happen.

Now, it seems to me that the people who are against railway expansion are people like you, because if you weren't you'd be arguing for a high speed line to be built the whole way to Liverpool. Instead, you are spending quite extraordinary amounts of time and energy trying to convince me that Liverpool should be content with inferior infrastructure, and either economic shrinkage, or less growth than other places which HS2 serves properly.

If you look at the sorts of posts I generally post on here they tend to be supportive of be rail services and lines and look for ways of making incremental steps to bring wider benefits, which is what I'm doing here.

I'm suggesting build HS2 and then expand it. In doing so there's going to be more support for doing so as there will be a clear customer base with passenger flows which can be used to argue for funding for the extra schemes.

I suppose you'll say something about having to draw the line somewhere. But why there ? It would cost a fraction of the overall project price to build a high speed line to Liverpool, by far the largest conurbation in England that won't have one, and also the closest conurbation to the trunk line not to be served. The city even offered to go into debt to pay for it itself, and that was turned down too.

There's got to be somewhere where construction finishes, even for a phase. Much in the same way that phase 2a and 2b have been split from the original phase. By splitting that up it allows one part to be delivered earlier than the other and so implement the benefits to the one being built first.

Let's for argument say that the spur to Liverpool was originally part of phase 2, now let's say that it was split off and became phase 2c and was set to open in 2038. How much different if that from where are at?

I would suggest planning and funding, it could still be opened by then or shortly after.

I agree that it's odd that Liverpool hasn't been allowed to part fund it themselves.

I see that you have repeated the strange argument that Liverpool stands to lose out more if HS2 is a success. Doesn't that just emphasise how ineffective HS2 risks being as a way of reducing economic disparity ? Think about it, and you will see why I'm struggling to take your position seriously.

I've said if I'm reading the table right then the better HS2 does the more likely Liverpool will be to loose out.

Therefore, if this is the case, the reason it becomes inefficient is the same way any railway which has too many people using it. In that the busier it gets the harder it is to provide a good service to everywhere.

I see that you also repeat the assertion that HS2 makes a high speed line to Liverpool more likely. (Yet) again I will remind you that there is no definitive plan, no funding, and no enabling legislation for any high speed line to Liverpool. If HS2 makes it such an inevitability, why don't they just finish the job and build it ? If it's so vitally necessary to the economic health of the nation that a high speed line is not built to Liverpool now, what's going to change at any point in the future which will make it more likely ?

I said if HS2 is a success then the link becomes more likely as there will be passenger numbers to support it.

Let's say that HS2 opens in 2027 and has more passengers than expected. Let's say 10% more. If that's the case then it becomes easier to say we need this link because there's lots of demand now and so we need to do more to cater for future passenger numbers. You will also find that there's more money in the railways pot meaning that they need less money from the treasury.

The more passenger growth happens the stronger the case for improvement.

 

[The Ham]

Let's turn the question around to look at the evidence again. Liverpool is the only city with an HS2 'service' which, according to HS2's own consultants, is at risk of economic shrinkage when HS2 is completed. Of course not every single person in every other city with an HS2 service will benefit. But there is no other city which is predicted to be at risk of economic shrinkage when HS2 is completed. You can spin and spin as much as you like, but you cannot escape how Liverpool compares to every other city served by HS2, according to HS2's own consultants

There's a risk, I haven't denied that. What I've pointed out to you is that there's also a risk that there'll be growth of £115 million.

 

[PR1Berske]

Let's turn this the other way around, will every single Street in Manchester benefit from HS2?

Almost certainly not, different Streets will benefit in different amounts.

Now let's answer your question, will the whole of 2 million people in the Liverpool City region benefit? No.

Will there be some who will now have to travel to work because their Street looses out? Yes.

Will that mean that they are worse off? If everything else is equal then yes, but it could be that they end up in a better job and so are better off (given the city region will benefit regardless of which column is used).

As such the likely overall picture is positive and Liverpool may be positive anyway even without looking to the rest of the city region.

I'm sorry, but really?

"No universal benefit, no obvious benefit, yes they'd be worse off but they could not be so who knows" does not equal "overall picture is positive". To me, that looks like "HS2 is broadly negative to Liverpool and the wider region."

 

[johnnychips]

Let's assume that the first stages of the HS2 are built to Birmingham, and to a junction with the existing WCML north of there. This does seem likely. What would you like to see happen after that, B&I, or anyone else who disagrees with the route after that?

 

[The Ham]

I'm sorry, but really?


"No universal benefit, no obvious benefit, yes they'd be worse off but they could not be so who knows" does not equal "overall picture is positive". To me, that looks like "HS2 is broadly negative to Liverpool and the wider region."

There's a chance that the city of Liverpool will loose out, there's a certainty that the city region of Liverpool will benefit (and so so by much more). As such any overall loose of one will be more than offset by the benefits to the other.


It could well be that some loose out, but chances are they will have opportunities within a short distance. However even under times of large growth in the economy there will be people who will loose their jobs.


The point that you are missing is that there's also a chance that HS2 will result in the city benefiting.


Having done some more research the High/Low appears to be associated with how sensitive business is to costs. With high being where business has a high sensitivity to costs while low is where they are less prone to costs impacting on them.

Therefore to get the full -£50 million all businesses in Liverpool would need to be highly sensitive to costs. Now obviously the opposite is true if all businesses in Liverpool arenot sensitive to costs then there would be +£115 million in benefits.

The likely impact would be that the answer would be that a percentage of business will be sensitive and a percentage won't be.

Now at this point we can't be sure which companies fall into which bracket and even if we could we couldn't be sure which would result in the biggest change.

However it's fairly certain that it's unlikely that it will bea straight line, in that probably you need relatively few companies to be the opposite to the majority to move away from the extremes. However conversely you would need a lot of companies to move either way from the central point. (Bell curve).

That will likely mean that it's highly likely that the result would be somewhere in the middle of the range. The middle of the range (-£50 million to +£115 million) is +£30 million to +£35 million. Which would mean that a negative result is fairly unlikely as there probably would have to be a very significant number of all business in Liverpool to be sensitive to costs to even result in a negative result.

 

[krus_aragon]

As this thread seems to be barreling along at a rate of notes and Ive not seen or missed it, is this £50 million dent in Liverpool immediate, over the life of HS2 or over a different period?

I don't have the answer, but your post brought to mind the image of Arthur Dent lying on the ground in front of a bulldozer. ("We'll see who rusts first", etc.)

 

[The Ham]

To be fair the plans for HS2 have been more easily available for looking at than either of Mr Dent's bypasses thanks to the internet.

 

[Adsy125]

Reading this as someone from the south coast who's unlikely to gain significantly from HS2 it seems that Liverpool is most likely to gain from HS2.

As has been said before, Liverpool could gain as much as £115million or potentially lose out by up to £50m. However anyone with a grasp of Maths will understand that from the figures we have it is more likely that's Liverpool will gain from HS2, not lose from it. Given that the overall 'Greater Liverpool' area which was continually quoted as going to lose out, will actually gain from HS2 in the worst case scenario. It seems like objections to HS2 isn't logical, but just out of jealousy because other areas are better connected.

 

[B&I]

This figure of 2 million, quoted a number of times by B&I, is completely spurious. The actual population, as provided by the official Liverpool City Region website, is 1.52 million. The higher number is only possible by including Chester, Warrington and Wigan as part of "Greater Liverpool". You will struggle to find many residents of those places who would agree with that idea. Indeed it is difficult to imagine how any of those residents would have any interest in whether or not HS2 serves Liverpool (whichever definition you choose) since their access to HS2 will be via other places.

Given that B&I's whole argument started with such a distortion (a 33% exageration) there seems little point in having an evidence based discussion with them. That leaves just an emotional one which I would suggest has been clearly shown to be the case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[B&I]

I understand that you are critical of HS2, but the problem is that there's a lot of people who would agree with you that HS2 is bad and so don't want any HS lines built.

The problem with building HS lines to Liverpool as part of the basic package is that it pushes the costs for HS2 higher. As such you will get more people saying that we are spending too much money on it and something else should happen.

As such the end result is that HS lines to Liverpool is less likely to happen.



If you look at the sorts of posts I generally post on here they tend to be supportive of be rail services and lines and look for ways of making incremental steps to bring wider benefits, which is what I'm doing here.

I'm suggesting build HS2 and then expand it. In doing so there's going to be more support for doing so as there will be a clear customer base with passenger flows which can be used to argue for funding for the extra schemes.



There's got to be somewhere where construction finishes, even for a phase. Much in the same way that phase 2a and 2b have been split from the original phase. By splitting that up it allows one part to be delivered earlier than the other and so implement the benefits to the one being built first.

Let's for argument say that the spur to Liverpool was originally part of phase 2, now let's say that it was split off and became phase 2c and was set to open in 2038. How much different if that from where are at?

I would suggest planning and funding, it could still be opened by then or shortly after.

I agree that it's odd that Liverpool hasn't been allowed to part fund it themselves.



I've said if I'm reading the table right then the better HS2 does the more likely Liverpool will be to loose out.

Therefore, if this is the case, the reason it becomes inefficient is the same way any railway which has too many people using it. In that the busier it gets the harder it is to provide a good service to everywhere.



I said if HS2 is a success then the link becomes more likely as there will be passenger numbers to support it.

Let's say that HS2 opens in 2027 and has more passengers than expected. Let's say 10% more. If that's the case then it becomes easier to say we need this link because there's lots of demand now and so we need to do more to cater for future passenger numbers. You will also find that there's more money in the railways pot meaning that they need less money from the treasury.

The more passenger growth happens the stronger the case for improvement.

I appreciate that HS2's proponents feel they eliminate any criticism of the project, in case it undermines the chances of it being built. Perhaps if the project had been more carefully planned, it would be more popular, and you wouldn't have to worry so much about ita future.

As for future expansion, I admire your optimism. If the line must be drawn to exclude a high speed railway to Liverpool now, what evidence is there that the line won't be drawn in the same place for evermore ?

Liverpool's services are expected to be the most crowded on HS2 from day one. That apparently doesn't justify a high speed line.

Railway lines across the country are full to bursting point already. Not all (or all that many) of those are destined to be relieved by high speed lines.

You accept that the decision. Ot to allow Liverpool to fund its own extension is odd. If the powers that be have set their face against allowing Liverpool to fund its own line, what are the chances of them deciding to fund it ?

Also, the civil servants who run the DfT and Treasury won't even allow the main lines across the country ro be electrified, or vital.pieves of infrastructure to be built to stop the entire northern railway network grinding to a halt. Doesn't bode well for a new line being built to Liverpool which has to date been deemed unnecessary.

Jam tomorrow doesn't really cut it, when the city is at risk of economic damage today. And by today, I mean today, not in 2033. I remind you that Channel 4 are said not to have short-listed Liverpool for a new base because its lack of connectivity post-HS2.

 

[talltim]

Sorry, my misreading. In my defence I was at the time stuck on a busy 185 with a 'child' (small demon more like) yelling the place down because he wasn't been given his iPad. Irrefutable evidence of the need for 400 m trains across the north, methinks

You should have given him his iPad then...

 

[B&I]

There's a risk, I haven't denied that. What I've pointed out to you is that there's also a risk that there'll be growth of £115 million.

None of the other cities served by HS2 is at risk of shrinkage. Why is Liverpool being singled out ?

 

[AndrewE]

This may raise some people 's hopes:
'Half of cabinet want to chuck' HS2, claims Stone MP
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-45495405)

An MP has claimed the HS2 rail programme is a "dying white elephant" which "half the cabinet want to chuck".

Sir Bill Cash, MP for Stone said he believed there are grounds for having a full government review into the project

He called on Chancellor Philip Hammond to "put the brakes on this vanity project before it leaves the station".

Transport minister Nusrat Ghani said the government was committed to HS2 and oher supporters said it was a project of national importance.

 

[B&I]

Let's assume that the first stages of the HS2 are built to Birmingham, and to a junction with the existing WCML north of there. This does seem likely. What would you like to see happen after that, B&I, or anyone else who disagrees with the route after that?

I think I've already dealt with this one. It'a getting hard to tell, with the different people repeating the same points so frequently.

I'd like to see high speed rail to every sizeable place in the country. However, if, as I'm continually told, it is vitally important that a high speed line does not get built to Liverpool, then I'd rather that the line is curtailed at Crewe, to eliminate the risk that Liverpool will suffer economic damage from HS2. Another option would be to curtail it there and tackle the worst congestion blackspots beyond that - at Slade Lane and Stockport on the Manchester lines, and between Winsford and Acton Bridge, and around Wigan, on the WCML trunk.

 

[B&I]

This may raise some people 's hopes:
'Half of cabinet want to chuck' HS2, claims Stone MP
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-45495405)

If it leads to a re-think and a better-planned line, then yes. No doubt, however, this will be used as further grounds to argue that no dissent from orthodox HS2ism must be tolerated

 

[B&I]

You should have given him his iPad then...

There were other things I was thinking of giving him, like the back of my hand, repeatedly

 

[B&I]

I don't have the answer, but your post brought to mind the image of Arthur Dent lying on the ground in front of a bulldozer. ("We'll see who rusts first", etc.)

At the.moment there is about as mich evidence in the real world that Earth will be demolished for an interplanetary bypass as there is that a high speed line will be built to Liverpool, or anywhere else not currently on HS2

 

[Ianno87]

None of the other cities served by HS2 is at risk of shrinkage. Why is Liverpool being singled out ?

By 'singled out' you of course mean 'given an enhanced train service to grow the wider city region and (in all likelihood) the city as well'

 

[Ianno87]

There were other things I was thinking of giving him, like the back of my hand, repeatedly

As the father of two young children who are fidgety and make noise despite my best efforts, this comment appalls me and has severely soured my perception of your character, so I'm out of this debate now.

 

[B&I]

Reading this as someone from the south coast who's unlikely to gain significantly from HS2 it seems that Liverpool is most likely to gain from HS2.

As has been said before, Liverpool could gain as much as £115million or potentially lose out by up to £50m. However anyone with a grasp of Maths will understand that from the figures we have it is more likely that's Liverpool will gain from HS2, not lose from it. Given that the overall 'Greater Liverpool' area which was continually quoted as going to lose out, will actually gain from HS2 in the worst case scenario. It seems like objections to HS2 isn't logical, but just out of jealousy because other areas are better connected.

Another southerner made the same suggestion yesterday, so I'll reply in similar terms. It is notjing to.do.with jealousy. It is to do with there being a risk.of economic shrinkage. That risk does not.apply to any of the other cities served by HS2. Why should Liberpool accept being the only city served by HS2 which is subject to that risk ?

 

[B&I]

As the father of two young children who are fidgety and make noise despite my best efforts, this comment appalls me and has severely soured my perception of your character, so I'm out of this debate now.

Well isn't it fortunate that time spent on this forum has taught me the necessity of having infinite reserves of patience ?

Also, it is perhaps possible that some of my comments may not be meant entirely seriously. Though I suppose I should have realised that the concepts of humour, hyperbole etc may be difficult to grasp for people whose main objects of emotional investment are railway infrastructure projects

 

[Adsy125]

Another southerner made the aame suggestion yesterday, so I'll reply in similar terms. It is notjing to.do.with jealousy. It is to do with there being a risk.of economic shrinkage. That risk does not.apply to any of the other cities served by HS2. Why should Liberpool accept being the only city served by HS2 which is subject to that risk ?

But overall the Liverpool area will certainly gain, so...

 

[B&I]

By 'singled out' you of course mean 'given an enhanced train service to grow the wider city region and (in all likelihood) the city as well'

No, singled out to be put at risk of economic shrinkage, uniquely among the cities served by HS2. Are you prepared to address that issue without dissimulation or deflection ?