HS2 and Liverpool

[B&I]

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.

What the hell relevance does the location of the PM's constituency have to do with anything else ? You were the one who said that one of the reasons Liverpool wasn't getting a high speed line was politics, then pretend that HS2 has been planned according entirely to pure unbiased logic in which politics have played no role. It's not my fault you said something you now wish you hadn't said.

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?

Nope, not saying that at all. Saying build a network that doesn't give a small number of places a substantial economic advantage over others. If saving money is your primary goal, spend less money on building expensive links into a handful of city centres, as you urge. Or build proper links to more of them, as I suggest.

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.

Oh wowsers man, 1 TPH more to a single destination. Transformative. You argued that Liverpool doesn't need any more capacity for extra services because local trains aren't overcrowded, and that's what's happening. Not a single inch of dedicated infrastructure is being built for Liverpool.

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 how many civil service jobs have moved out of London since 2010 ? The ONS moved its headquarters to Newport in 2010, amidst almost universal whingeing from the London financial industry. A substantial part of that article describes HMRC moving to regional hubs (from smaller sub-regional offices) and NHS Digital moving from one set of Leeds offices to another. Apart from that it's some 'plans'. I won't be holding my breath. However, the extract from Civil Service News may explain why you're so sensitive to any criticism of government decisions.

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.

You're avoiding the question, again. You said originally that there were factors other than rail connectivity discouraging investment in Liverpool. First of all you set out a set of vague possibilities and declined to explain how these applied to Liverpool. Now you are repeating your 'shut up Liverpool, you're getting faster trains' mantra (still, it seems, not getting the basic point that improvements to Liverpool's service are unlikely to attract investment when competing cities' already superior services are going to be improved to a substantially greater degree). Why did you say that there were other factors discouraging investment in Liverpool, when you can't actually set out which factors affect Liverpool and how ?

 

[krus_aragon]

Talking of evidence, btw, what's the basis for this fantasy figure of Liverpool-Crewe taking 23 minutes on existing lines ? The fastest timerabled serv much rolece is 34 minutes, albeit that is usually closer to 40 because Liverpool trains frequently get stuck behind delayed traina from further north on the 2 track section between Acton Bridge and Winsford, and it may slow down further.because classic compatibles won't tilt. If you can't be bothered looking up National Rail Enquiries to find out the actual time ot takes to get from Liveroool to Crewe, what possible weight can any of your other opinions have ?

Tobbes stated at the foot of his post that his numbers were based at travelling at full (e.g. 125mph) linespeed over the distance between Liverpool and Crewe, ignoring issues such as acceleration, deceleration (and slow traffic). It is a very simplified model, with all the pitfalls of modelling livestock as spherical cows, for example.

As you correctly point out, such times are not achievable in real life, for the reasons mentioned above. Hence the significantly longer time quoted on NRE. But if we are to use the NRE time instead for non-HS2 times, we can't use Tobbes' times for a HS2 branch to Liverpool, as that'd be comparing apples with oranges. We'd need a new high-speed model that considered those factors that Tobbes disregarded.

(Note that it'd take longer to accelerate to HS2 speeds than to current mainline speeds, thus estimates for high speed services would suffer more from the inclusion of acceleration time than lower speed ones.)

I'm not as knowledgeable about HS2 as the many posters on this thread, and I don't know of any such estimates for the time for a high speed train to go between Crewe and Liverpool on a bespoke HS2 branch. If you (or other posters) know of such figures, then by all means share them and we can get a more accurate estimate of time savings.

In the meantime, from a scientific/mathematical standpoint, Tobbes' simplified estimates are the best ones posted here so far.

 

[Tobbes]

What the hell relevance does the location of the PM's constituency have to do with anything else ? You were the one who said that one of the reasons Liverpool wasn't getting a high speed line was politics, then pretend that HS2 has been planned according entirely to pure unbiased logic in which politics have played no role. It's not my fault you said something you now wish you hadn't said.

Are you this offensive in person?

You seem to be missing the not-very-complicated-point I was making. Let me try once again: unless there was very senior political interference - e.g., the PM's constituency is going to directly benefit / conspicuously miss out - then in a choice between Liverpool and Manchester, it is no surprise (backed up by revenues and BCRs) that Manchester got the nod for a direct HSR and Liverpool will have a classic compatible service.

Nope, not saying that at all. Saying build a network that doesn't give a small number of places a substantial economic advantage over others. If saving money is your primary goal, spend less money on building expensive links into a handful of city centres, as you urge. Or build proper links to more of them, as I suggest.

But where is the funding for these "proper links" (whatever that means....) going to come from? And it's about delivering a system within the available budget, rather than saving money per se.

Oh wowsers man, 1 TPH more to a single destination. Transformative. You argued that Liverpool doesn't need any more capacity for extra services because local trains aren't overcrowded, and that's what's happening. Not a single inch of dedicated infrastructure is being built for Liverpool.

Yes, doubling the frequency and reducing the travel time by 27% will indeed be transformational - more so if tied into NPR/HS3 and if both services additionally call at Birimingham International. Transformational does need specific inches of infrastructure....

So how many civil service jobs have moved out of London since 2010 ? The ONS moved its headquarters to Newport in 2010, amidst almost universal whingeing from the London financial industry. A substantial part of that article describes HMRC moving to regional hubs (from smaller sub-regional offices) and NHS Digital moving from one set of Leeds offices to another. Apart from that it's some 'plans'. I won't be holding my breath. However, the extract from Civil Service News may explain why you're so sensitive to any criticism of government decisions.

Ah yes, it MUST be a conspiracy! Err, try taking your tin foil hat off - I'm not government or in the civil service - you asked and this was the best source. But, BBC to Salford, HS2 to Birmingham, lots of HMRC functions moved out of London, Trade Remedies Authority to Reading, NR to Milton Keynes, EWR to Cambridge(?).

You're avoiding the question, again. You said originally that there were factors other tban rail connectivity discouraging investment in Liverpool. First of all you set out a set of vague possibilities and declined to explain how these applied to Liverpool. Now you are repeating your 'shut up Liverpool, you're getting faster trains' mantra (still, it seems, not getting the basic point that improvements to Liverpool's service are unlikely to attract investment when competing cities' already superior services are going to be improved to a substantially greater degree). Why did you say that there were other factors discouraging investment in Liverpool, when you can't actually set out which factors affect Liverpool and how ?

Oddly enough, this example precisely answers your question. Liverpool's advantages in cost would need to outweigh Manchester's in journey time... not complicated!

 

[Tobbes]

Tobbes stated at the foot of his post that his numbers were based at travelling at full (e.g. 125mph) linespeed over the distance between Liverpool and Crewe, ignoring issues such as acceleration, deceleration (and slow traffic). It is a very simplified model, with all the pitfalls of modelling livestock as spherical cows, for example.

As you correctly point out, such times are not achievable in real life, for the reasons mentioned above. Hence the significantly longer time quoted on NRE. But if we are to use the NRE time instead for non-HS2 times, we can't use Tobbes' times for a HS2 branch to Liverpool, as that'd be comparing apples with oranges. We'd need a new high-speed model that considered those factors that Tobbes disregarded.

(Note that it'd take longer to accelerate to HS2 speeds than to current mainline speeds, thus estimates for high speed services would suffer more from the inclusion of acceleration time than lower speed ones.)

I'm not as knowledgeable about HS2 as the many posters on this thread, and I don't know of any such estimates for the time for a high speed train to go between Crewe and Liverpool on a bespoke HS2 branch. If you (or other posters) know of such figures, then by all means share them and we can get a more accurate estimate of time savings.

In the meantime, from a scientific/mathematical standpoint, Tobbes' simplified estimates are the best ones posted here so far.

Thanks @krus_aragon, precisely this - a gross error check, rather than a prediction. I'd be delighted with some more accurate modelling.

 

[6Gman]

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.

"Build it and they will come" is an expression I often see quoted. But experience from many fields suggests it's simply not the case. Consider how many millennium projects (museums, galleries, visitor attractions) have since closed because of poor attendances.

Incidentally Mrs6G and I were on the 1747 Liverpool - Euston today. Mrs6G was worried it might be full. It was around 25% loaded in Standard. Would 3 trains per hour really "explode" revenue?

 

[B&I]

Tobbes stated at the foot of his post that his numbers were based at travelling at full (e.g. 125mph) linespeed over the distance between Liverpool and Crewe, ignoring issues such as acceleration, deceleration (and slow traffic). It is a very simplified model, with all the pitfalls of modelling livestock as spherical cows, for example.

As you correctly point out, such times are not achievable in real life, for the reasons mentioned above. Hence the significantly longer time quoted on NRE. But if we are to use the NRE time instead for non-HS2 times, we can't use Tobbes' times for a HS2 branch to Liverpool, as that'd be comparing apples with oranges. We'd need a new high-speed model that considered those factors that Tobbes disregarded.

(Note that it'd take longer to accelerate to HS2 speeds than to current mainline speeds, thus estimates for high speed services would suffer more from the inclusion of acceleration time than lower speed ones.)

I'm not as knowledgeable about HS2 as the many posters on this thread, and I don't know of any such estimates for the time for a high speed train to go between Crewe and Liverpool on a bespoke HS2 branch. If you (or other posters) know of such figures, then by all means share them and we can get a more accurate estimate of time savings.

In the meantime, from a scientific/mathematical standpoint, Tobbes' simplified estimates are the best ones posted here so far.

No, they are meaningless, as MarkyT pointed out. Tobbes also maintained that he had taken the times from NRE, which he couldn't have done.

 

[Tobbes]

No, they are meaningless, as MarkyT pointed out. Tobbes also maintained that he had taken the times from NRE, which he couldn't have done.

Hmm, I think we may have crossed wires here. Where I used NRE, I said so, and where I was using the gross error check, I said so too - and if I didn't I certainly meant to.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A more reliable set of data can be found here:

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

In fact I am more than happy for the purposes of this discussion to use the larger figure for "Greater Liverpool" which arises from the population of Liverpool City Region: this includes all 5 districts of Merseyside plus Halton to give a total of 1.52 million.

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.

Perhaps, as per your suggestion to another poster, you should refer to National Rail Enquiries. Southport, in the north of Sefton District, enjoys quicker journey times to London via Wigan than via Liverpool. Similarly Hooton, in South Wirral, enjoys quicker journey times via Chester than via Liverpool. That is the current position. No magic beanstalks necessary. However it can be that passengers from those places wanting cheaper fares may find themselves travelling via Liverpool due to the greater excess capacity found on Pendolinos departing Lime Street rather than Pendolinos/Voyagers departing Wigan/Chester. Could it be that it's those other two routes that are more in need of a better service to London than Liverpool?

Of course the answer to that is not as simple as yes or no but requires many varying factors to be considered. However the idea that everywhere should have exactly the same level of service as everywhere else, as you have suggested a number of times, simply does not stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.

 

[krus_aragon]

No, they are meaningless, as MarkyT pointed out.

Er, if you're referring to MarkyT's comments in post 18, then you may want to re-read it. MarkyT starts by saying Tobbes made "A very sensible contribution", and then points out that the possible time savings for HS2 would be even less than what Tobbes calculated. The figures may be overly optimistic, but they still set a (generous) upper bound on time savings.

But I take your (collective) points that there may have been crossed wirings and misunderstandings, especially given how fast this thread is developing. I had to spend ten minutes going back and checking what was posted when, before I could start writing this reply.

 

[B&I]

Round and round and round we go.

Are you this offensive in person?

I am much more offensive in person. Still, you seem to have gone through life with surprisingly few people having told you when you're talking through your hat, which is presumably why you're taking offence now.

You seem to be missing the not-very-complicated-point I was making. Let me try once again: unless there was very senior political interference - e.g., the PM's constituency is going to directly benefit / conspicuously miss out - then in a choice between Liverpool and Manchester, it is no surprise (backed up by revenues and BCRs) that Manchester got the nod for a direct HSR and Liverpool will have a classic compatible service.

I'm not missing your point, I'm pointing out the colossal inconsistency in it. Once you accept that some decisions are made on the basis of politics, your argument that a decision you were in favour of was not subject to political influence looks distinctly unconvincing.

But where is the funding for these "proper links" (whatever that means....) going to come from? And it's about delivering a system within the available budget, rather than saving money per se.

You're saying £50 bn can be found for HS2 as is, but another c £2 bn can't be found to take a high soeed line to Liverpool ? Wrong. It's a political decision to draw an arbitrary line there.

Yes, doubling the frequency and reducing the travel time by 27% will indeed be transformational - more so if tied into NPR/HS3 and if both services additionally call at Birimingham International. Transformational does need specific inches of infrastructure....

So, we have your opinion about what will happen, contrary to the available evidence (even on KPMG's best case scenario Liverpool will receive the lowest GVA uplift of any city region directly served by HS2 - hardly transformative).

But what's this ? It's 'especially' likely that Liverpool will undergo a transformative impact from HS2 if.... someone builds a high speed line the whole way to it ! Well of course it would benefit from that, because journey time and capacity differentials will be eliminated, but that's what you have spent over 24 hours arguing passionately against.

Ah yes, it MUST be a conspiracy! Err, try taking your tin foil hat off - I'm not government or in the civil service - you asked and this was the best source. But, BBC to Salford, HS2 to Birmingham, lots of HMRC functions moved out of London, Trade Remedies Authority to Reading, NR to Milton Keynes, EWR to Cambridge(?).

If you concentrate on what I've actually written, you'll find that you make fewer silly comments like that. Civil Service News is hardly a publication which most normal people read, and some of your comments showed the sort of mental inflexibility and disingenuousness which in my experience characterises the modern British civil service.

I have no doubt that a few government agencies, state corporations etc have moved jobs outside London and its environs. However, as your list illustrates, the overall total of jobs moved out of London is miniscule, and we're not exactly talking the central functions of state. Hence England remains among the developed world's most centralised countries. I venture to suggest that HS2 will do little about that.

Oddly enough, this example precisely answers your question. Liverpool's advantages in cost would need to outweigh Manchester's in journey time... not complicated!

Oddly, you now seem to agree that transport connectivity is central to the attractiveness of cities to investors, which is what I have been arguing throughout. Makes your unexplained reference to other factors preventing investment in Liverpool all the more mystifying.

 

[B&I]

In fact I am more than happy for the purposes of this discussion to use the larger figure for "Greater Liverpool" which arises from the population of Liverpool City Region: this includes all 5 districts of Merseyside plus Halton to give a total of 1.52 million.



Perhaps, as per your suggestion to another poster, you should refer to National Rail Enquiries. Southport, in the north of Sefton District, enjoys quicker journey times to London via Wigan than via Liverpool. Similarly Hooton, in South Wirral, enjoys quicker journey times via Chester than via Liverpool. That is the current position. No magic beanstalks necessary. However it can be that passengers from those places wanting cheaper fares may find themselves travelling via Liverpool due to the greater excess capacity found on Pendolinos departing Lime Street rather than Pendolinos/Voyagers departing Wigan/Chester. Could it be that it's those other two routes that are more in need of a better service to London than Liverpool?

Of course the answer to that is not as simple as yes or no but requires many varying factors to be considered. However the idea that everywhere should have exactly the same level of service as everywhere else, as you have suggested a number of times, simply does not stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.

It's also certainly not faster to go from most of the Wirral to London via anywhere other than Lime Street, but the analysis of urban areas on which HS2 based its figures seems to be predicated on the basis that it is.

I have never asked for everywhere having exactly the same service levels. I have asked for service provision which does not place the city in which I live and work at risk of economic damage. Not an unreasonable request, I suspect most ordinary members of the public would think.

 

[B&I]

Er, if you're referring to MarkyT's comments in post 18, then you may want to re-read it. MarkyT starts by saying Tobbes made "A very sensible contribution", and then points out that the possible time savings for HS2 would be even less than what Tobbes calculated. The figures may be overly optimistic, but they still set a (generous) upper bound on time savings.

But I take your (collective) points that there may have been crossed wirings and misunderstandings, especially given how fast this thread is developing. I had to spend ten minutes going back and checking what was posted when, before I could start writing this reply.

No, I was referring to post 19, where MarkyT suggested to me that it was impossible to compare present-day rail timings with future classic compatible timings because the modelling hasn't been done.

 

[krus_aragon]

No, I was referring to post 19, where MarkyT suggested to.me that it was impossible to compare present-day rail timings with future classic compatible timings because the modelling hasn't been done.

Thanks. I thought you were saying he'd described Tobbes' estimate as meaningless. I agree that comparing actual present day timings with an unspecified future classic complatible isn't a good comparison (that apples and oranges thing), and would also like to see figures based somew more advanced modelling. But Tobbes' model, while simplistic, gives us a rough estimate that's enough to say that (traffic notwithstanding) the extra linespeed of a HS2 spur compared to a non-stop run on the current alignment would be so small (sub 9s iirc) as to be not worth the bother.

If we're agreed on that, that leaves the issue of whether the rail route from Liverpool to Crewe is too overcrowded for a sufficiently fast service, and warrants a new alignment. (Sounds like the business case for HS2 phase 1!) I'm sure you'll be willing to make the argument, and I look forward to hearing your case.

 

[mmh]

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.

Do you have any examples of the Liverpool area (or Huddersfield) receiving unusual and notable support from central government during Wilson's premierships?

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.

I'd question why your 500 staff need to be within 90 minutes of London. Why?

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)

Ah, because you're a long distance commuter to London. I'm shocked. Perhaps it'd be better for people to work closer to home?

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.

Unless I'm missing something it'd still be over the magical 90 minutes from London though so you still wouldn't consider opening an office in Liverpool.

 

[The Ham]

I'd question why your 500 staff need to be within 90 minutes of London. Why?

As someone who has never worked in London I can assure you that there's the potential for a lot of advantages of having a quick journey time for being able to attend meetings in London.

Now there's not going to be lots of business which will benefit from that, however there will be a lot of businesses who will benefit from the fact that that one business has located in Liverpool.

As although a hairdresser or a café will have business meetings in London they will benefit from the architectural or engineering practice who does.

Circa 90 minutes would mean that a 10 am meeting can be done without having to leave before 8, rather than having to leave around 7:30. With an arrival time back to the office of about 2pm (assuming an hour long meeting). Rather than 2:30 (or 3pm of you push the meeting back to 10:30 to have a more reasonable departure time).

Unless I'm missing something it'd still be over the magical 90 minutes from London though so you still wouldn't consider opening an office in Liverpool.

The limit wasn't fixed at 90 minutes it was stated as about 90 minutes (probably +10/-20 minutes) which 96 minutes is within.

There would of course be other factors like proximity to the station and cost of rents. It may well be that for comparable rents you would have a much further walk to the station in Manchester than Liverpool making your personal journey time longer.

It's all very well comparing train journey times, but if all office space near to one station has very high rents making it less affordable the actual journey time from somewhere which is affordable could be longer than from somewhere which takes longer on the train.

Given Manchester has a lot of financial services companies I would suggest that they are likely to inflate rents. Add in the perception of a much better service (even though 2tph is fine for long distance services as you tend to plan when you want to go) and you could find yourself looking at offices the wrong end of a 30 minutes walk away from the station.

Even though that it may still be quicker than one a 10 minutes walk away, the perception is (especially when you have to carry a laptop) that the latter feels much closer, and so the 15-20 minutes difference is less noticeable and therefore an acceptable compromise.

 

[frodshamfella]

I

In fact I am more than happy for the purposes of this discussion to use the larger figure for "Greater Liverpool" which arises from the population of Liverpool City Region: this includes all 5 districts of Merseyside plus Halton to give a total of 1.52 million.



Perhaps, as per your suggestion to another poster, you should refer to National Rail Enquiries. Southport, in the north of Sefton District, enjoys quicker journey times to London via Wigan than via Liverpool. Similarly Hooton, in South Wirral, enjoys quicker journey times via Chester than via Liverpool. That is the current position. No magic beanstalks necessary. However it can be that passengers from those places wanting cheaper fares may find themselves travelling via Liverpool due to the greater excess capacity found on Pendolinos departing Lime Street rather than Pendolinos/Voyagers departing Wigan/Chester. Could it be that it's those other two routes that are more in need of a better service to London than Liverpool?

Of course the answer to that is not as simple as yes or no but requires many varying factors to be considered. However the idea that everywhere should have exactly the same level of service as everywhere else, as you have suggested a number of times, simply does not stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.

I have only travelled from Southport to Wigan once or twice but it didn't seem fast or frequent. I think most passengers from Southport to London would prefer to go via Liverpool being that Merseyrail offers a train every 15 mins I believe and it's pretty quick and more reliable than Northern for sure.

 

[frodshamfella]

Thanks. I thought you were saying he'd described Tobbes' estimate as meaningless. I agree that comparing actual present day timings with an unspecified future classic complatible isn't a good comparison (that apples and oranges thing), and would also like to see figures based somew more advanced modelling. But Tobbes' model, while simplistic, gives us a rough estimate that's enough to say that (traffic notwithstanding) the extra linespeed of a HS2 spur compared to a non-stop run on the current alignment would be so small (sub 9s iirc) as to be not worth the bother.

If we're agreed on that, that leaves the issue of whether the rail route from Liverpool to Crewe is too overcrowded for a sufficiently fast service, and warrants a new alignment. (Sounds like the business case for HS2 phase 1!) I'm sure you'll be willing to make the argument, and I look forward to hearing your case.

I know Liverpool - Crewe is overcrowded at times I use It, albeit using Acton Bridge Station on London Northwestern . Not uncommon to stand. Particularly I've noticed of late on a Saturday .

 

[krus_aragon]

I know Liverpool - Crewe is overcrowded at times I use It, albeit using Acton Bridge Station on London Northwestern . Not uncommon to stand. Particularly I've noticed of late on a Saturday .

I was thinking in terms of train paths, not neccesarily passenger space.

 

[B&I]

Thanks. I thought you were saying he'd described Tobbes' estimate as meaningless. I agree that comparing actual present day timings with an unspecified future classic complatible isn't a good comparison (that apples and oranges thing), and would also like to see figures based somew more advanced modelling. But Tobbes' model, while simplistic, gives us a rough estimate that's enough to say that (traffic notwithstanding) the extra linespeed of a HS2 spur compared to a non-stop run on the current alignment would be so small (sub 9s iirc) as to be not worth the bother.

If we're agreed on that, that leaves the issue of whether the rail route from Liverpool to Crewe is too overcrowded for a sufficiently fast service, and warrants a new alignment. (Sounds like the business case for HS2 phase 1!) I'm sure you'll be willing to make the argument, and I look forward to hearing your case.

If we don't have the modelling to comment on the future speed of non-tilting trains on classic compatible services (and it might be asked why not), how can we comment with any certainty on the likely difference in time between the current services and an high speed line in future ? Tobbes, after all, is making guesses based on his belief that Liverpool would be 30.miles from the HS2 trunk at its closest (which would mean that the HS2 trunk must be running somewhere through the suburbs of Salford - I do hopeit its residents have been told) and with no knowledge of acceleration or decceleration characteristics. Is this the sort of back of the envelope calculation that HS2 has been planned on the basis of ?

Are you saying that a high speed line the whole way to Liverpool would be only 9 seconds faster than the current journey time from Crewe ?

Btw like Tobbes you now seem to be saying that Liverpool should be served with extra conventional tracks rather than a high speed line. Why should I ve making the case for that, when it's not my suggestion, and frankly it's a daft idea ? Why would we build 2 new low speed tracks through a number of reasonable-sized towns, requiring the bridging of the fairly broad Weaver Valley (you'll have noticed that if you've ever taken a train to Liverpool), with minimal likely time savings, to serve 2 TPH (assuming we follow HS2's approach and confine Liverpool-Birmingham trains to a creakingly slow glorified outer suburban service, rather than connect a spur to the existing HS2 line (to which your suggested enhancement would run virtually parallel), which could also carry most if not all of Liverpool's long-distance services to all points east ? Why don't we 4 track some secondary line into Leeds or Manchester instead of building them high speed lines ? How much would this 4 tracking cost, compared to.a spur line, and what benefits would it bring by comparison ?

The mental hoops that people are jumping through on this forum to keep Liverpool off HS2 are astonishing.

 

[B&I]

Do you have any examples of the Liverpool area (or Huddersfield) receiving unusual and notable support from central government during Wilson's premierships?

I wonder why he has chosen to focus on one PM, who happened to be a Liverpool MP, over all the other examples of pork barrelling that we have seen down the ages ? I mean, it couldn't be because Tobbes might in any way have a bit of a problem with Liverpool. I am sure he has spent juat as much time and energy defending HS2 against the slightest.suggestion of project creep in any other sense.

But as we know, HS2 has sprung forth from the godhead of economic probity and sound business cases. I mean, it is entirely obvious to any impartial.observer that it needa to have a station in a field some way west of Manchester Airport and an expensive tunnel into Manchester as a result of that. Only a cynic of the deepest dye would suggest that that was in any way related to the conjunction of Manchester Airport Group's desire to build.a souped-up business park at the site, and the local MP, who just happened to be Chancellor.of the Exchequer, giving his constituents the chance to travel in no time flat to their city centre offices (along with everywhere else on the HS2 network).

 

[Tobbes]

I am much more offensive in person. Still, you seem to have gone through life with surprisingly few people having told you when you're talking through your hat, which is presumably why you're taking offence now.

Not at all, but if this conversation is typical of your approach, it's not exactly a great shock that you've not been more effective in getting people to change their mind about HSR into Liverpool.

I'm not missing your point, I'm pointing out the colossal inconsistency in it. Once you accept that some decisions are made on the basis of politics, your argument that a decision you were in favour of was not subject to political influence looks distinctly unconvincing.

Ah, I see. Well, sadly wrong again - HS2 does not look like what I want (I wanted to have a dedicated HSR to Scotland, rather than it petering out halfway). So I'm afraid you need to find another explanation: for the rest of us, given the lack of an unlimited budget, we can at least be thankful that rational choices have prevailed so far, and that if there is demand for 3tph of 400m captive HS2 trains on the Liverpool - London axis, then this can be sensibly revisited. @MarkyT approach of looking at LDHS specific higher speed corridor into Liverpool in conjunction with NPR/HS3 seems like far and away the best approach.

You're saying £50 bn can be found for HS2 as is, but another c £2 bn can't be found to take a high soeed line to Liverpool ? Wrong. It's a political decision to draw an arbitrary line there.

Where does this £2bn figure come from other than a 2014 report? Given the other discussion on Liverpool terminal capacity, the idea that an HSR can be built through a dense urban setting and either serve a newly reopened Exchange, expanded Lime Street or new subterranian station for £2bn seems at best "highly speculative" - but then you've shown in the thread you're hardly averse to plucking numbers out of the air.

So, we have your opinion about what will happen, contrary to the available evidence (even on KPMG's best case scenario Liverpool will receive the lowest GVA uplift of any city region directly served by HS2 - hardly transformative).

+1.2% in GVA by a single intervention that is paid for nationally? Every mayor in the world would bite your hand off for that.

But what's this ? It's 'especially' likely that Liverpool will undergo a transformative impact from HS2 if.... someone builds a high speed line the whole way to it ! Well of course it would benefit from that, because journey time and capacity differentials will be eliminated, but that's what you have spent over 24 hours arguing passionately against.

Again, hyperbole is not your friend, even if it is your stock in trade. I am passionately in favour of HS2, and getting phase 2b built is what I'm concerned about. If the choice is connect everywhere with dedicated HSR or nowhere, then nowhere will win - presumably pleasing you because it means that Manchester doesn't benefit either.

If you concentrate on what I've actually written, you'll find that you make fewer silly comments like that. Civil Service News is hardly a publication which most normal people read, and some of your comments showed the sort of mental inflexibility and disingenuousness which in my experience characterises the modern British civil service.

And again. So if you Google "Civil Service Jobs moved out of London" you get.... quite a lot of articles from Civil Service World. Amazing thing, Google - you should try it some time.

I have no doubt that a few government agencies, state corporations etc have moved jobs outside London and its environs. However, as your list illustrates, the overall total of jobs moved out of London is miniscule, and we're not exactly talking the central functions of state. Hence England remains among the developed world's most centralised countries. I venture to suggest that HS2 will do little about that.

There are actually very few state corporations left, in case Thatcher's privatisation had escaped you? The majority of public sector jobs aren't in London, actually, but there is a concerted push to get more out of London, and HS2 will help in two ways - first, because it will make it actually quicker to get about and second (and perhaps more importantly) it will look easier, meaning that the CS may be able to get more more senior posts out of London, without the perception that this is career ending.

Oddly, you now seem to agree that transport connectivity is central to the attractiveness of cities to investors, which is what I have been arguing throughout. Makes your unexplained reference to other factors preventing investment in Liverpool all the more mystifying.

Hardly mystifying. The point was simply that once a location is in the mix (and Liverpool at 96 mins from London would be) then the other factors of costs, local skill base, reputation, environment come into play.

 

[B&I]

As someone who has never worked in London I can assure you that there's the potential for a lot of advantages of having a quick journey time for being able to attend meetings in London.

Now there's not going to be lots of business which will benefit from that, however there will be a lot of businesses who will benefit from the fact that that one business has located in Liverpool.

As although a hairdresser or a café will have business meetings in London they will benefit from the architectural or engineering practice who does.

Circa 90 minutes would mean that a 10 am meeting can be done without having to leave before 8, rather than having to leave around 7:30. With an arrival time back to the office of about 2pm (assuming an hour long meeting). Rather than 2:30 (or 3pm of you push the meeting back to 10:30 to have a more reasonable departure time).



The limit wasn't fixed at 90 minutes it was stated as about 90 minutes (probably +10/-20 minutes) which 96 minutes is within.

There would of course be other factors like proximity to the station and cost of rents. It may well be that for comparable rents you would have a much further walk to the station in Manchester than Liverpool making your personal journey time longer.

It's all very well comparing train journey times, but if all office space near to one station has very high rents making it less affordable the actual journey time from somewhere which is affordable could be longer than from somewhere which takes longer on the train.

Given Manchester has a lot of financial services companies I would suggest that they are likely to inflate rents. Add in the perception of a much better service (even though 2tph is fine for long distance services as you tend to plan when you want to go) and you could find yourself looking at offices the wrong end of a 30 minutes walk away from the station.

Even though that it may still be quicker than one a 10 minutes walk away, the perception is (especially when you have to carry a laptop) that the latter feels much closer, and so the 15-20 minutes difference is less noticeable and therefore an acceptable compromise.

Or it could be that HS2 places Liverpool at risk of economic shrinkage, as its own consultants' report stated

 

[The Ham]

Or it could be that HS2 places Liverpool at risk of economoc shrinkage, as its own consultants' report stated

Only if each and every company in Liverpool is cost sensitive. Including a certain high profile football team.

 

[B&I]

Apologies, repeated post. So what's new, you say

 

[Tobbes]

I wonder why he has chosen to focus on one PM, who happened to be a Liverpool MP, over all the other examples of pork barrelling that we have seen down the ages ? I mean, it couldn't be because Tobbes might in any way have a bit of a problem with Liverpool. I am sure he has spent juat as much time and energy defending HS2 against the slightest.suggestion of project creep in any other sense.

Just possibly, @B&I because we were talking about rail projects in Liverpool and Liverpool's political leadership? As it happens, I think that the funding for Western Rail Access To Heathrow probably has something to do with the identity of the current member for Maidenhead, and I'm critical of that project because it should have been funded by the airport instead of the public.

I'm afraid that I'm not anti-Liverpool, but that I don't believe that there is a huge anti-Liverpool conspiracy either. What there isn't is as strong a business case for an HSR all the way into Liverpool from HS2 as there is in Manchester for all of the reasons that have been rehearsed here, and @MarkyT 's suggestion of a higher speed LDHS/NPR/HS3 route into central Liverpool seems like the most likely to succeed.

 

[notlob.divad]

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.

You really don't get this do you. Growing the Northern economies whilst the South Eastern Economy grows faster, is not re-balancing the economy. If I have an out of balance scale and put a little weight on the light side and a lot of weight on the already heavier side; The scales do not magically move back into balance. By the same token and your own admission HS2 will further entrench the North-South divide, by boosting the biggest place on the route over the smaller places. In doing so, the major cities of the North and Midlands will become commuter towns for executives, whilst the current commuter towns to these big cities becoming ghost towns, their entire economies stripped out into the future London suburbs.

Growth from displaced jobs is not real growth, and re-balancing the economy cannot be achieved by pouring more fuel into the overheated South East, whilst stripping the Northern towns of their economies.

It is absolutly true the sentiment I have seen expressed several times. Getting a HS2 line is possibly the worst thing that could happen to a city, second only to being the town that HS2 bypasses.

 

[Tobbes]

Tobbes, after all, is making guesses based on his belief that Liverpool would be 30.miles from the HS2 trunk at its closest (which would mean that the HS2 trunk must be running somewhere through the suburbs of Salford - I do hopeit its residents have been told) and with no knowledge of acceleration or decceleration characteristics.

Actually, I was thinking more of a longer route that would be more optimised for Liverpool, because two sides of a triangle are longer than the third. And as such, giving Liverpool HSR the strongest possible case in journey time savings as opposed to classics speed lines. But don't worry, this is only evidence of my innate anti-Liverpool bias, obviously.

Are you saying that a high speed line the whole way to Liverpool would be only 9 seconds faster than the current journey time from Crewe ?

Minutes, seconds, all kind of the same thing, really.....

The mental hoops that people are jumping through on this forum to keep Liverpool off HS2 are astonishing.

Damn, you've seen though our masterplan.... time to take your tin-foil hat off?

 

[krus_aragon]

Are you saying that a high speed line the whole way to Liverpool would be only 9 seconds faster than the current journey time from Crewe ?

Btw like Tobbes you now seem to be saying that Liverpool should be served with extra conventional tracks rather than a high speed line.

I think that's the time differential Tobbes' estimate indicated (remember, that's assuming top speed, no other traffic).

I am not advocating any particular solution, in fact I'm trying to avoid doing so. I used the term "new alignment" just to mean "not upgrading the current line" . That could mean either a conventional line or a high speed line. I presume that as you're not happy with the current HS2 approach that you wish to advocate something along these lined.

 

[Tobbes]

YIt is absolutly true the sentiment I have seen expressed several times. Getting a HS2 line is possibly the worst thing that could happen to a city, second only to being the town that HS2 bypasses.

So we should scrap HS2 completely, then....? Which will help Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds exactly how?

 

[The Ham]

Each and every.company ? Is that really how you interpreted the 'high sensitivity' model in that report ?

If it's not every company then what is it?

As if it is not every company then it is a worthless figure.


From the report:

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

6.3.76 We have used this data to estimate the share of costs which are due to road and rail transport in each sector. We have made adjustments to include the value of time and inconvenience in transport by applying an uplift of 100% to transport costs. This
broadly reflects the balance between the financial costs of transport and the
generalised journey costs. We have also made an adjustment for the share of rail and road costs that relate to freight so that the cost shares better reflect the cost of
personal travel by car and rail in these sectors. Table 22 shows the parameters that have been used in the analysis.

As such the report confirms that the costs are based on every company in the UK and the sensitivity test is applied on the basis of travel costs doubling.

Therefore I would say that it is each and every company.

I would also suggest although there's a risk of the economy of Liverpool being harmed this would only be the case when travel costs doubled whilst all other costs and prices remain static.

Therefore although there is a risk, as with all sensitivity tests, the reality would be that it's unlikely to ever happen.