HS2 and Liverpool

[B&I]

What I was saying was that Liverpool WAS the only city to be possibly impacted negatively, since then the proposal has changed.

There's no avaliable data for that change, without that you can't be sure that it's still the same.

It is the only evidence which we have. Where's your evidence to say the changes whoch have taen place - ie one of Liverpool's services has no.longer been speeded up by only 20.minutes - has made any difference at all to the potential economic outcomes ?

 

[The Ham]

The question I actually asked was 'why is Liverpool the only core city served by HS2 which is, according to.HS2'S own consultants, at risk of economic shrinkage thanks to HS2 ?' In other words, why is it acveptable that Liverpool is being put at a risk which nowhere else served directly by HS2 is being subjected to ?

In fairness to you, I think we've finally got aa direct an answer as we're going to.get out.of you. The risk.of.damage is in your view juatified by the potential benefits to.other places. And then you wonder why people who live in Liberpool arem't bowing and scraping before their masters for the munificence shown to them.

I'm getting the impression that you don't understand some very important terminology relating to this issue, without understanding then you are always going to be miss understanding the report.

As I said the report was designed to stress test the original assumptions.

If you are stress testing toy have to check to see what would happen if the results aren't as favourable as you think.

If you were to stress test your finances you may look at what could happen if Bank of England interest rates went to 5% and how that would impact on your ability to pay your mortgage. This could result in you having a £50 shortfall each month in your finances if you were to buy a new car. However under the current situation you would have £115 a month spare.

As things stand the actual risk of that happening is very low. Do you decide (using that information) not to buy a new car or do you go ahead?

Most people would buy the car, as the risk is very low because the Bank of England are not planning on raising interest rates to anywhere close to that.

As such although the finances of the person are at risk of being negative the reality is that they will not be put in that position. This is the same with Liverpool.

In theory there's a risk but in reality it won't happen, as for it to do so would require each and every company in Liverpool to be cost sensitive.

 

[The Ham]

It is the only evidence which we have. Where's your evidencento say the changes whoch have taen place - ie one of Liverpool's services has no.longer been speeded up by only 20.minutes - has made any difference at all to the potential economic outcomes ?

Innocent until proven guilty, therefore it is your responsibility to provide the evidence that it is still an issue.

 

[B&I]

The answer is straightforward, when the KPMG report was done Liverpool was not going to be served by HS2. Since then the working assumption is that HS2 will serve Liverpool and the report has not been updated with the revised service pattern

What ?

When this report was penned, it was planned that HS2 would 'serve' Liverpool, after a fashion. The only thing which has changed since is that 1 of the 2 serbices per hour will now be speeded uo by more than 20 mins per leg.

 

[deltic]

But current passenger numbers from Leeds to London barely exceed those from Liverpool to London, despite havinf 2 more trila8ns per houe. If you're adding York and Newcastle.passenger revenues on to.boost Leeds' case, why not add Lancashire, Cumbria ans Glasgow to.boost Liverpool's ?

I note also you argue on the basis of passenger revebues rather than numbers. To what extent are those distorted by first class travel ? Are we building a railwqy to shift as many people as possible, or to shift as maby first class passengers as possible ?

Why draw the line at serving the 3 busiest markets.from.London ? Why not the top 2, saving the cost of the entire eastern fork.of HS2 ? Isn't the line being drawnnin a completely arbitrary place ?

The eastern section of HS2 is designed not just to serve Leeds but the north east as well which is why I added them in.

I dont have access to passenger numbers which is why I used revenue numbers albeit they are not current.

As I said the line was designed to relieve pressure on the WCML, ECML and MML which is why it was designed as it is. On the WCML Manchester happens to be a three times larger market than Liverpool which is why it goes into the former rather than the latter. The route was a political decision taken by Lord Adonis back in 2009 who asked HS2 to "consider the potential for HS2 to extend to the conurbations of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland"

 

[deltic]

What ?

When this report was penned, it was planned that HS2 would 'serve' Liverpool, after a fashion. The only thing which has changed since is that 1 of the 2 serbices per hour will now be speeded uo by more than 20 mins per leg.

You are quite right, you responded to my post while I was correcting my original one - apologies for the confusion caused

 

[MarkyT]

I can't understand how having an entirely new dedicated branch and station, with all the inner city disruption of their construction, would significantly improve the economic impact of the proposed improved service of two fast trains an hour, getting to and from London 32 minutes more quickly than existing Pendolinos. On the other hand, for service resilience, I would like to see a plan in conjunction with NPR to fashion a dedicated high speed corridor from the Manchester airport junction area into Liverpool via a new east-west axis station through Warrington. I don't have a problem if that pair of tracks follows an existing corridor to some extent and uses an existing terminal. In Liverpool the existing rail corridors actually have space for this unlike in Manchester, where the approaches from the south are heavily congested and have no space for new tracks on the surface alongside. A long tunnel from the airport conveniently avoids all the junction conflicts at Stockport and Slade Lane as well. Similar scenarios apply in Birmingham and Leeds but less developed areas quite close to the city centres can be rearranged on the surface more realistically to allow a surface and viaduct approach, hence a more expensive tunnel is not required, nor perhaps desirable (although there is a short section of tunnel in the case of the Birmingham approach). The speed of the new city approaches is not as high as on the main trunk part of the network, to reduce costs of structures and allow a more sinuous alignment when on the surface so as to be able to pass through the denser urban approaches without too much destruction, so the journey time penalties of running over existing alignments in places are not great. In these cities the new terminals are not seen as separate entities but are being built as adjuncts to their existing major station sites, so they are really extra capacity for those stations rather than some separate shiny thing that stands alone. I think the new city approaches already proposed are justified on capacity and resilience grounds and something similar for Liverpool might be created in partnership with NPR, which needn't be an entitrely new alignment and will get further value from the Manchester tunnel and any further enhancement of Piccadilly HS to get NPR trains (and perhaps a few HS2 trains from Birmingham?) over the Pennines. Meanwhile performance impact of running in mixed traffic conventional segments can be managed by giving the fastest expresses absolute priority, which means signallers would be instructed to give them a clear run at all times, whether on time or running late, stopping other trains as necessary. That requires some detailed thought as to how other services interact with the expresses with some extra pathing time added and even some additional infrastructure, additional loops and platforms for stopping trains to wait clear for example. I don't like already fast moving freight trains having to unexpectedly stop then have to get going again, because their slow acceleration eats so much track capacity. At Crewe that's not such a problem northbound because the freights can be regulated out of Basford Hall on the independent lines which are fairly slow anyway so there's little effect, but southbound at Weaver junction C-DAS is really required to instruct them to hold back a bit so they can avoid stopping and slip out immediately behind the fasts with little time lost.

 

[B&I]

Innocent until proven guilty, therefore it is your responsibility to provide the evidence that it is still an issue.

No, if it is your argument that the position has now changed since 2013, it is up to you to produce evidence that it has. Until you do, you're speculating about there being any difference.

I'm getting the impression that you don't understand some very important terminology relating to this issue, without understanding then you are always going to be miss understanding the report.

As I said the report was designed to stress test the original assumptions.

If you are stress testing toy have to check to see what would happen if the results aren't as favourable as you think.

If you were to stress test your finances you may look at what could happen if Bank of England interest rates went to 5% and how that would impact on your ability to pay your mortgage. This could result in you having a £50 shortfall each month in your finances if you were to buy a new car. However under the current situation you would have £115 a month spare.

As things stand the actual risk of that happening is very low. Do you decide (using that information) not to buy a new car or do you go ahead?

Most people would buy the car, as the risk is very low because the Bank of England are not planning on raising interest rates to anywhere close to that.

As such although the finances of the person are at risk of being negative the reality is that they will not be put in that position. This is the same with Liverpool.

In theory there's a risk but in reality it won't happen, as for it to do so would require each and every company in Liverpool to be cost sensitive.

Bearing in mind it took you several goes to understand that the basis for the KPMG report was economic sensitivity to rail connectivity, and not available seat numbers to Liverpool dependent on how many people used Liverpool trains to get to Crewe, the words 'glass houses' and 'stones' spring to mind.

As I have repeatedly said, there is a risk, not a certainty, of economic damage. A risk that no other core city served by HS2 is being subjected to. Most of us, if we have any sense, do our best to reduce avoidable risks. The other cities served by HS2 don't have to do this. Why should Liverpool ?

(Please do not answer again by playing down the risk. I have got that point, I just don't agree with it.)

 

[The Ham]

Bearing in mind it took you several goes to understand that the basis for the KPMG report was economic sensitivity to rail connectivity, and not available seat numbers to Liverpool dependent on how many people used Liverpool trains to get to Crewe, the words 'glass houses' and 'stones' spring to mind.

As I have repeatedly said, there is a risk, not a certainty, of economic damage. A risk that no other core city served by HS2 is being subjected to. Most of us, if we have any sense, do our best to reduce avoidable risks. The other cities served by HS2 don't have to do this. Why should Liverpool ?

(Please do not answer again by playing down the risk. I have got that point, I just don't agree with it.)

I accept that I didn't understand the data, but I was the one that pointed this out after doing some more reading.

At no point did you or anyone else correct me. If this was the case then your above post may have some relevance.

I'm playing down the risk by pointing out that the risk had been engineered to test the economic model of HS2.

 

[B&I]

The eastern section of HS2 is designed not just to serve Leeds but the north east as well which is why I added them in.

I dont have access to passenger numbers which is why I used revenue numbers albeit they are not current.

As I said the line was designed to relieve pressure on the WCML, ECML and MML which is why it was designed as it is. On the WCML Manchester happens to be a three times larger market than Liverpool which is why it goes into the former rather than the latter. The route was a political decision taken by Lord Adonis back in 2009 who asked HS2 to "consider the potential for HS2 to extend to the conurbations of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland"

A political decision. Ar arbitrary line drawn

 

[notlob.divad]

As painful as it is to point out, the UK economy has been concentrated on the Thames flood plain since Roman times, and Greater London really does subsidise almost everything outside it. Regional economic policy has been tried and consistently failed to move the needle since the 1960s, but high speed connectivity for the NW to London and Birmingham may just be the best answer yet.

I'm not arguing that benefit of the HSRs are shared equally by all points on the network (the biggest city usually benefits most), but both ends will benefit.

Just to point out the obvious contradiction in these two points made in the same post.

 

[B&I]

I accept that I didn't understand the data, but I was the one that pointed this out after doing some more reading.

At no point did you or anyone else correct me. If this was the case then your above post may have some relevance.

I'm playing down the risk by pointing out that the risk had been engineered to test the economic model of HS2.

The model has, I assume, been applied in the same way to each city. Why do you think it is acceptable for Liverpool to be put at a risk which other cities aren't ? I asked before if you could answer that question without playing down that risk

 

[B&I]

You are quite right, you responded to my post while I was correcting my original one - apologies for the confusion caused

No problem. Thanks for the clarification

 

[Tobbes]

So, if you've read it, why were you referring to the FAQs.rather than the body of the report ? And what exactly has happened since 2014 ? Liverpool is no linger being saddled with a service about 10.minutes faster than its existing one ? GEE THANKS

Sorry, so let me understand the situation: HS2 will double the existing frequencyof Liverpool to London services, and even if the Stafford train stays in (and I would prefer the Stafford stop to be dropped precisely because of the effect on the Liverpool services), both services are significantly faster than anything seen today.

You're not sure what National Rail Enquiries is ? That doesn't surprise me, when you claim that it would be possible to travel from Livsrpool to Crewe in 11.minutes less than the current best timing using trains which will not be as fast over this stretch of line as the current trains.

I certainly don't recall claiming that - oddly enough, I was using NRE for journey times.

Spare you what ? Your own pist says that, if Liverpool suffers, it will be worth it because Manchester benefits. If you think that's a defensible position, fine, but don't go round pretending that abyone who disagrees with you has a chip on their shoulder

I was merely pointing out that *if* the worst case came to fruition (which is highly unlikely) then the NW as a whole would gain. It would appear that because the worst case scenario of a 2013 report since when much has changed could come true, then we shouldn't build HS2 Phase 2 without a dedicated Liverpool HS spur because, well, at least the whole of the NW (and Manchester in particular) wouldn't have an unfair advantage over Liverpool.

I hope you realise how utterly ridiculous that argument is. And it is telling that 20 Miles More - which only seems to apply if "West of Warrington" were implemented, which it won't be, making their name wrong, and all of their calculations inherently suspect - haven't bothered to update their materials since 2014. As well as continuing to make stupid assertions like "HS2 trains will take on average 103 mins from Liverpool to London" when in fact only a very late running express will take 103 mins, it gives the strong impression of an organisation that isn't trying very hard.

What's also interesting is that you've not asked anyone here what they think (and since this is a pro-rail site, this seems especially odd). Let me help you.

- I'd use the NPR/HS3 approach to Liverpool for the reasons @MarkyT laid out

- I'd omit the Stafford stop and run both trains on a 96 min schedule.

- I'd omit the Runcorn stop and add a Birmingham International stop (these won't quite cancel each other out timewise, but it should be close) to maximise regional connectivity

- I'd wait and see what happens to demand.

 

[Tobbes]

Just to point out the obvious contradiction in these two points made in the same post.

No contradiction: that London may benefit in aggregate more than Liverpool does not mean that (i) Liverpool does not benefit and (ii) that this isn't the best attempt at economic rebalancing we've yet tried.

 

[notlob.divad]

London to Manchester generates 3 times the revenue of London to Liverpool.

It has 3 times the hourly service. Surprise surprise. You put more frequent trains on, more people find it convenient to use the train from that location. Put 3tph on London to Liverpool for an extended period of time and see your revenue on that route explode.

 

[The Ham]

The model has, I assume, been applied in the same way to each city. Why do you think it is acceptable for Liverpool to be put at a risk which other cities aren't ? I asked before if you could answer that question without playing down that risk

Liverpool was at risk, however there's been a change (regardless as to how small you think that change is, you change a variable and it will change the results) since that report was done. That change could have been made because of the report highlighting the risk.

As such without the updated information you can't be sure that the economy of Liverpool is still at risk at being impacted negatively. As such until there's evidence to show that it is then your argument is week.

Does that mean that people shouldn't be seeking for updated information? Certainly not, and I've suggested that you do so.

 

[B&I]

Sorry, so let me understand the situation: HS2 will double the existing frequencyof Liverpool to London services, and even if the Stafford train stays in (and I would prefer the Stafford stop to be dropped precisely because of the effect on the Liverpool services), both services are significantly faster than anything seen today.



I certainly don't recall claiming that - oddly enough, I was using NRE for journey times.



I was merely pointing out that *if* the worst case came to fruition (which is highly unlikely) then the NW as a whole would gain. It would appear that because the worst case scenario of a 2013 report since when much has changed could come true, then we shouldn't build HS2 Phase 2 without a dedicated Liverpool HS spur because, well, at least the whole of the NW (and Manchester in particular) wouldn't have an unfair advantage over Liverpool.

I hope you realise how utterly ridiculous that argument is. And it is telling that 20 Miles More - which only seems to apply if "West of Warrington" were implemented, which it won't be, making their name wrong, and all of their calculations inherently suspect - haven't bothered to update their materials since 2014. As well as continuing to make stupid assertions like "HS2 trains will take on average 103 mins from Liverpool to London" when in fact only a very late running express will take 103 mins, it gives the strong impression of an organisation that isn't trying very hard.

What's also interesting is that you've not asked anyone here what they think (and since this is a pro-rail site, this seems especially odd). Let me help you.

- I'd use the NPR/HS3 approach to Liverpool for the reasons @MarkyT laid out

- I'd omit the Stafford stop and run both trains on a 96 min schedule.

- I'd omit the Runcorn stop and add a Birmingham International stop (these won't quite cancel each other out timewise, but it should be close) to maximise regional connectivity

- I'd wait and see what happens to demand.

Sorry, I didn't realise that I had to ask you to express your opinion, since you seem more than capable of expressing it without being asked. I still don't know why you're posting on this thread when you admitted that the relevant decisions boiled down to politics, then attempted a clumsy reverse ferret by claiming that HS2 had somehow been planned in a complete political vacuum and that it had been a lucky escape for the rest of the country that Liverpool didn't have the clout to get a high speed line built to it.

You claim that NRE told you that there were services from Liverpool to Crewe which took 23 mins. Let me help you with that one - no you didn't. The fastest timetabled aervice is 34 minutes. Can you now see why I'm.not massively.interested in your predictions about what economic.impact HS2 will or will not have on Liverpool, when you can neither get basic present day facts right, or admit that you've got them wrong ?

20 Miles More's plan, to the best of.my recollection, envisaged a line from Lime Street to.a junction with the HS2 trunk near Golborne, not a West of.Warrington route (though it may have argued for.l that separately). Liverpool is 21 miles from Golborne at road. So... . (And I'd suggest in any case that youn learn to use NRE before you criticise material which anyone else produces.)

Strip away for a moment the possibility that HS2 night benefit Liverpool, albeit to a much lesser extent that everywhere elsebwith a direct London service. Your expressed view is that, if the worst case scenario is correct, then the consequent detriment to Liverpool is worth it if other places benefit. You seem to somehow find it odd that people who live and work in Liverpool could hold the opposite view, and that anyone who doesn't want the city's economic prospects put at risk to improve somewhere else's is 'whingeing'.

Are you really incapable of seeing what an odd viewpoint that is for real people in the real world who care about real jobs and real living standards ? If you can't, you're not alone on this forum, but it doesn't make it any less odd a way of thinking.

You, or anyone else living in somewhere at no risk of losing out from HS2, can afford to 'wait and see'. We in Liverpool, at risk of economic shrinkage (and already suffering from major investors avoiding our city because of HS2) cannot.

Btw you never did get back to me on those other factors, which were nothing to do with HS2, which you felt were holding investment in Liverpool back. Have you thought any up yet ?

 

[B&I]

Liverpool was at risk, however there's been a change (regardless as to how small you think that change is, you change a variable and it will change the results) since that report was done. That change could have been made because of the report highlighting the risk.

As such without the updated information you can't be sure that the economy of Liverpool is still at risk at being impacted negatively. As such until there's evidence to show that it is then your argument is week.

Does that mean that people shouldn't be seeking for updated information? Certainly not, and I've suggested that you do so.

Unfortunately, as unlike HS2 Ltd, I haven't received millions in public money, I can't afford to pay KPMG for a new report.

Why don't you look for some evidence to contradict the only existing evidence on the subject, rather than asserting that, because variable a has changed, then outcome x must have changed as well, as if development economics worked like gears on a machine ?

 

[notlob.divad]

No contradiction: that London may benefit in aggregate more than Liverpool does not mean that (i) Liverpool does not benefit and (ii) that this isn't the best attempt at economic rebalancing we've yet tried.

I made no mention of Liverpool.
Your contradiction is: that high speed connectivity "maybe the best answer yet" to decentralisation of the UK economy away from London, whilst in the same post saying that benefits of high speed connectivity are disproportionately biased towards the bigger place, in this case London.
Therefore according to your 2nd point the building of HS2 will have greatest benefit in London and the South East over the northern destinations it is serving, and thus is entirely in contradiction to your first point stating that HS2 could be the best answer to rebalancing the UK economy away from the Thames floodplain.

The fact that you either haven't seen or haven't admitted your contradiction and instead doubled down on your assertion, leads me in my critical analysis of the many points you have made on this thread, to downgrade the weights of importance and truthfulness to the points you are making. In challenging one of the points you have made, you have proved yourself to be consistently inconsistent, and thus the arguments you put forward whilst not irrelevant have be significantly downgraded in the eyes of this reader.

 

[tbtc]

For maybe the 78th time, why is Liverpool the only core city served by HS2 which is, according to.HS2'S own consultants, at risk of economic shrinkage thanks to HS2 ? Can you please answer that question, without deflection ?

My simple answer to this question would be that these kind of "stress tests" come up with a best case scenario and a worst case scenario.

For something with a great business case, these will stretch between a huge boost and a minor boost.

For something with a weaker business case, these will stretch between a good boost and a negative impact.

Manchester/ Birmingham/ Leeds seem to have stronger business cases than Liverpool (not my words, Carol, the words of HS2's consultants), so even the "worst case scenario" would still be a positive impact.

Liverpool's weaker case means that the window between best/worst cases could be negative. But we are still introducing two HS2 services per hour, knocking around half an hour per journey off the current service. Are you saying that you'd rather we did nothing?

(there's always a chance that an improved railway will have a negative effect upon a place - it could boost economic growth or it could result in the place becoming a dormitory town - it's never guaranteed that an improved railway will be a benefit to a place - e.g. some people have suggested that Birmingham will become like somewhere like Didcot - where people live so they can commute to London but don't actually improve their local economy)

It is genuinely enjoyable watching people argue on the basis of figures which include Harlow.and Bracknell within Greater London's popultation, yet exclude the whole of the Sefton borough north of Crosby, and the whole Wirral, feom Liverpool's.

Someone else claimed Liverpool's urban area is less 'dense' than that of other cities. Yet the statistics show that it is more built up than any of the larger areas, except Londo. When you have anaomalies arising from.the 1972 Local Government act such as the City of Leeds including Otley (separated from it by 10 miles of.fields), while the boundaries of the City od Liverpool don't even reach its own outer ring road, this is unsurprising.

Someone else claims that the EU statistics have been made up by bureaucrats in Brussels and bear no relationship to reality. How is something.made up by bureaucrats in London any more objective ? The British list includes, for example, towns in the Leeds urban area which are 32.minutes from Leeds by rail, but excludes somewhere 4.minutes from.Liverpool.

Yet anyone who questions any aspect of HS2's planning on thos forum is treated like Copernicus by the flat earthers.

Does "Liverpool" include Wigan (and Chester/ Warrington etc)?

Will passengers from London to Wigan (and Chester/ Warrington etc) go to Lime Street and change there for local services?

If not then using them in your artificially inflated definition of Liverpool seems a bit silly.

For the slow learners amongst us, I will repeat it again: Liverpool. Is. The. Only. Core. City. Served. BY. HS2. At. Risk. Of. Economic. Shrinkage. Once. HS2. Is. Completed.

...because Liverpool's weaker case means that we can't guarantee that HS2 will be a boost (unlike the stronger cases of Manchester/ Birmingham/ Leeds), sure.

This isnnot.something I'd expect someone who chweefully writes off the city he lives in as second tier to understand.

I'm just more realistic about the city I live in - I don't pretend that Sheffield is a "top table" kind of place. I've lived in one of those cities - I prefer the culture and the people in Sheffield.

You seem to be taking Liverpool's position rather personally though.

In your view it is inflicting economic damage on Liverpool so Manchester can benefit. But of course it ia only Scousers with chips on their shoulders who think their city is being harmed by HS2.

I thought you weren't bothered about Manchester?

Regardless, thanks for not playing up to the stereotype.

 

[The Ham]

Unfortunately, as unlike HS2 Ltd, I haven't received millions in public money, I can't afford to pay KPMG for a new report.

Why don't you look for some evidence to contradict the only existing evidence on the subject, rather than asserting that, because variable a has changed, then outcome x must have changed as well, as if development economics worked like gears on a machine ?

I didn't tell you to produce a report I told you to make a freedom of information (FOI) request, which doesn't cost you anything. It is what Newsnight did to get that table in the first place.

 

[B&I]

Well, that's pretty much my definition for a number plucked out of the air - "some new DMUs" (how many? to what specification?) "proper length" (which is?) "serve Manchester and Leeds" (why these two places? at what frequencies?)

Because you argued that Liverpool should not receive new capacity, and that Manchester and Leeds should, because their trains were more crowded. As I have said, I'd like to see more investment everywhere. You're the one who likes arbitrary lists of places that will and will not be invested in eg by arguing that Greater Manchester and 'Greater Leeds' (a curious invention which I have never heard anyone else refer to, ever) are bigger rail markets than Liverpool.

Well, HS2 is as a good an attempt as we've tried before, precisely because it makes moving out of London a more credible option for those who need to be able to access the place. And though you've obviously not noticed, the Civil Service has been moving staff and functions out of London for some time. But don't let the facts get in the way of your confected outrage.

That London is the biggest aggregate gainer doesn't mean that the gains to the NW aren't (i) worth having and (ii) achievable any other way. No reason that with a 96 min journey that Liverpool to London you shouldn't have long-distance commuting, though you appear to appear to oppose that, too. Which is weird, because it is precisely additional patronage that makes the case for additional services, and in future, a direct HSR link.

Again, as with your claim that trains currently travel from Liverpool to Crewe in 23 minutes, your deployment of com9letely incorrect facts seems to have fueled your unpersuasive opinions. Since 2010, only Greater London and Greater Manchester have seen increased numbers of civil service jobs. If that's your idea of decentralisation, no wonder you think that an infrastructure project which benefits London more than everywhere else somehow rebalances the economy in favour of the provinces.

Btw, am I confecting my outrage, or am I having a genuine whingefest ? Make your mind up.

There are any number of other reasons: skills, approach to planning, connectivity, perception, brand, investment incentives, quality of local political leadership, local universities.... I was just curious what you saw as the reasons beyond the lack of a dedicated HSR.

So, can you explain how and to waht extent any or all of those variables discourages investment in Liverpool ? (Apart from lack of connectivity - it's actually my central argument that lack of connectivity undermines Liverpool's economy, and will continue to do so because HS2 makes it, relative to competing cities, even less attractive than it is now.) Or could it be that you've actually no basis for asserting what you've asserted ?

You're not getting this, are you, @B&I : the case for a direct HSR to Manchester is stronger than that for Liverpool, and in a resource constrained world, decisions have to be made. Now, if the PM were the member for Huyton/Knowsley South, then politics may have dictated that a direct Liverpool HSR spur would have been built irrespective of the BCR. That's the point I'm making. Have you ever worked in Government?

Oh I get it alright. Politics decides everything, but not in the case if HS2, which has been planned according to absolute pure disinterested logic. I don't ever need to have worked in government to know that that's utter unadulterated cobblers.

PS the Huyton constituency was abolished in 1983, and Knowsley South in 2010. Neither can be reached from Crewe on current rail services in 23 minutes.

 

[B&I]

I didn't tell you to produce a report I told you to make a freedom of information (FOI) request, which doesn't cost you anything. It is what Newsnight did to get that table in the first place.

Why ? There hasn't been any new report. Why don't you make an FoI request for evidence showing that the position has changed ?

 

[Tobbes]

I made no mention of Liverpool.
Your contradiction is: that high speed connectivity "maybe the best answer yet" to decentralisation of the UK economy away from London, whilst in the same post saying that benefits of high speed connectivity are disproportionately biased towards the bigger place, in this case London.
Therefore according to your 2nd point the building of HS2 will have greatest benefit in London and the South East over the northern destinations it is serving, and thus is entirely in contradiction to your first point stating that HS2 could be the best answer to rebalancing the UK economy away from the Thames floodplain.

The fact that you either haven't seen or haven't admitted your contradiction and instead doubled down on your assertion, leads me in my critical analysis of the many points you have made on this thread, to downgrade the weights of importance and truthfulness to the points you are making. In challenging one of the points you have made, you have proved yourself to be consistently inconsistent, and thus the arguments you put forward whilst not irrelevant have be significantly downgraded in the eyes of this reader.

UK Governments have been trying to rebalance the economy / promote growth in the regions since the 1960s, and the policies have never really delivered [insert your favourite rationale why here]. What links these two apparently contradictory statements together is that by making it quicker and easier to get to places outside the SE (connectivity), doing business (and yes, even commuting) means that there is a greater chance that more deprived areas (e.g., the NW) will do better than they would have done without the increased connectivity. This is the basis of my comment that this could be the most effective attempt at regional growth (aka rebalancing the economy) since the 1960s.

Seperately, my understanding of the evidence from France is that HSRs between two points tends to result in two effects. First, both the connected cities do better relative to unconnected cities, and than they would have done without the line being built. Second, the larger city does proportionately better than the smaller city.

So, the first proposition says that HS2 could be the best thing that has happened to regional growth prospects since the 1960s (an absolute measure) even if more of the subsequent growth goes to London (a comparative measure). Both places connected will benefit.

I hope that that's clearer.

 

[B&I]

My simple answer to this question would be that these kind of "stress tests" come up with a best case scenario and a worst case scenario.

For something with a great business case, these will stretch between a huge boost and a minor boost.

For something with a weaker business case, these will stretch between a good boost and a negative impact.

Manchester/ Birmingham/ Leeds seem to have stronger business cases than Liverpool (not my words, Carol, the words of HS2's consultants), so even the "worst case scenario" would still be a positive impact.

Liverpool's weaker case means that the window between best/worst cases could be negative. But we are still introducing two HS2 services per hour, knocking around half an hour per journey off the current service. Are you saying that you'd rather we did nothing?

(there's always a chance that an improved railway will have a negative effect upon a place - it could boost economic growth or it could result in the place becoming a dormitory town - it's never guaranteed that an improved railway will be a benefit to a place - e.g. some people have suggested that Birmingham will become like somewhere like Didcot - where people live so they can commute to London but don't actually improve their local economy)

What 'weaker case' ? The weaker economic case because it is getting a poorer HS2 service ? That's what I've been saying.

Does "Liverpool" include Wigan (and Chester/ Warrington etc)?

Will passengers from London to Wigan (and Chester/ Warrington etc) go to Lime Street and change there for local services?

If not then using them in your artificially inflated definition of Liverpool seems a bit silly.

Not half as silly as basing your case on the assumption that people from the Wirral and the northern half of the borough of Sefton don't travel via Liverpool looks. I don't know, perhaps they use magic beanstalks.

Btw you're getting very selective in your definitions of city regions. Just the other day you were arguing that Wigan North Western should be considered to have the same relationship to Lime Street as Meadowhall does to Sheffield Midland, despite the distance between the former being almost 5 times the distance between the latter, because Wigan was in the same region as Liverpool. Funny how quickly things can change, isn't it ?

I'm just more realistic about the city I live in - I don't pretend that Sheffield is a "top table" kind of place. I've lived in one of those cities - I prefer the culture and the people in Sheffield.

You seem to be taking Liverpool's position rather personally though.

I thought you weren't bothered about Manchester?

Regardless, thanks for not playing up to the stereotype.

What stereotype would that be ? And bearing in mind I'm not actually from Liverpool, and not even English, how do you even know what stereotype would fit me ? Fortunately people who live in Sheffield are not generally known for being snide smart alecks, so there is no danger of you fulfilling any stereotypes.

When did I ever say I'm not bothered about Manchester ? I'm bothered about Manchester if its superior rail connectivity means that jobs go there, rather than Liverpool, but I'd be bothered about any city enjoying that advantage.

 

[B&I]

UK Governments have been trying to rebalance the economy / promote growth in the regions since the 1960s, and the policies have never really delivered [insert your favourite rationale why here]. What links these two apparently contradictory statements together is that by making it quicker and easier to get to places outside the SE (connectivity), doing business (and yes, even commuting) means that there is a greater chance that more deprived areas (e.g., the NW) will do better than they would have done without the increased connectivity. This is the basis of my comment that this could be the most effective attempt at regional growth (aka rebalancing the economy) since the 1960s.

Seperately, my understanding of the evidence from France is that HSRs between two points tends to result in two effects. First, both the connected cities do better relative to unconnected cities, and than they would have done without the line being built. Second, the larger city does proportionately better than the smaller city.

So, the first proposition says that HS2 could be the best thing that has happened to regional growth prospects since the 1960s (an absolute measure) even if more of the subsequent growth goes to London (a comparative measure). Both places connected will benefit.

I hope that that's clearer.

It's clearer that you support a policy whose main beneficiary is London, yes. Why not just.move some stuff out of London, beginning with most of the civil service ? Any attempt to promote decentralisation in England was utterly half-hearted and petered out decades ago.

 

[B&I]

Btw I am.so.glad that the decision was taken to spin this thread off to avoid Liverpool clogging up the thread on the need for HS2 generally. Since then, that thtead has gone to sleep, except for Shaw S Hunter posting exactly the same on it as he does on this one. The issue of Liverpool is so uninteresting, irrelevant and pointless that certain posters simply can't stop talking about it. (I know that includes me, but I never said was any of those things)

 

[route101]

Btw I am.so.glad that the decision was taken to spin this thread off to avoid Liverpool clogging up the thread on the need for HS2 generally. Since then, that thtead has gone to sleep, except for Shaw S Hunter posting exactly the same on it as he does on this one. The issue of Liverpool is so uninteresting, irrelevant and pointless that certain posters simply can't stop talking about it. (I know that includes me, but I never said was any of those things)

Im interesting in HS2 ,but not really the politics of it , i want to know about its construction , where its going etc . Seems to lost amongst it.

 

[Tobbes]

PS the Huyton constituency was abolished in 1983, and Knowsley South in 2010. Neither can be reached from Crewe on current rail services in 23 minutes.

Let's start here. If HS2 had been proposed when Harold Wilson was PM and MP for Huyton, then it is much more likely that Liverpool would get a High Speed Link. That's the politics I'm talking about, even if you insist on misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Oh I get it alright. Politics decides everything, but not in the case if HS2, which has been planned according to absolute pure disinterested logic. I don't ever need to have worked in government to know that that's utter unadulterated cobblers.

See above. In the absence of political considerations like having the PM's constituency in the affected area, then for a limited budget, decisions can be made more in line with the BCRs. Are you suggesting that assuming the costs were the same, it would be better for the country as a whole to build an optimised HSR alignment to Liverpool and run Classic Compatibles to and from Greater Manchester?

Because you argued that Liverpool should not receive new capacity, and that Manchester and Leeds should, because their trains were more crowded.

That literally isn't true - HS2 provides 2 tph London - Liverpool, remember? What I was pointing out was that if you're using a metric of overcrowding to determine investment decisions, then the PIXC data shows that there is more overcrowding in Manchester and Leeds than in Liverpool, that's all.

Again, as with your claim that trains currently travel from Liverpool to Crewe in 23 minutes, your deployment of com9letely incorrect facts seems to have fueled your unpersuasive opinions. Since 2010, only Greater London and Greater Manchester have seen increased numbers of civil service jobs. If that's your idea of decentralisation, no wonder you think that an infrastructure project which benefits London more than everywhere else somehow rebalances the economy in favour of the provinces.

Well, you may want to provide your source for that. I didn't say moving the civil service is quick or easy, but I did say that it is happening - see here. And a good step was moving HS2 Ltd's offices to Birmingham, as it happens....

So, can you explain how and to waht extent any or all of those variables discourages investment in Liverpool ? (Apart from lack of connectivity - it's actually my central argument that lack of connectivity undermines Liverpool's economy, and will continue to do so because HS2 makes it, relative to competing cities, even less attractive than it is now.) Or could it be that you've actually no basis for asserting what you've asserted ?

Let's say post HS2 Phase 2 opening I want to locate an office of 500 staff somewhere in the UK. I narrow it down to London or something within around 90 mins from London, if there's a reliable all-day train service and an easily accessible airport. This gives me a choice of London/bits of the SE, Birmingham, Manchester or, wait for it, Liverpool. Interestingly, it doesn't give me Norwich or Cardiff, and Liverpool is closer in time than Bristol.

So I look at London/SE and find that office space and cost of living is very high, and therefore there could be real savings from Manchester or Liverpool - so then the clincher is which is better overall value. If Liverpool remains considerably cheaper, then the extra 28 mins to London isn't relevant; if not, then Manchester would probably get the nod.

What do I take from this? Yes, in a world of unlimited resources for building HSRs, there would be a dedicated HSR London to Liverpool optimised for the purpose. Sadly, we don't live in that world (if we did, then I'd be all up for an East Anglia Shinkansen to save me 30 mins twice a day) so the current decision was made between Manchester and Liverpool. It's hard to see what the rationale would be to have taken the opposite decision. And twice the freqency with a 36 min/27% (132 - 96) saving seems like a pretty major upgrade to me - and will prove whether there's a case for a dedicated route.