HS2 and Liverpool

[Chester1]

Am I correct in thinking that Liverpool and Preston HS2 services as originally planned would not involve splitting and joining with 2tph and 1tph running seperately as 200m units. It has since been recommended to the government that the Preston service is linked to 1 Liverpool service to free up a path for a Macclesfield service. Should extra capacity be needed, then why not link the remaining Liverpool service with that one at Birmingham Interchange? That would give Liverpool 3 x 200m services.

 

[The Planner]

For those that are interested, the difference in base running times between EPS and non EPS (390 vs 350) between Crewe and Liverpool is 1 minute inclusive of a Runcorn stop. Even if the workstream to achieve 125 non EPS fails you would expect a classic compatible to reduce that difference.

 

[The Planner]

Am I correct in thinking that Liverpool and Preston HS2 services as originally planned would not involve splitting and joining with 2tph and 1tph running seperately as 200m units. It has since been recommended to the government that the Preston service is linked to 1 Liverpool service to free up a path for a Macclesfield service. Should extra capacity be needed, then why not link the remaining Liverpool service with that one at Birmingham Interchange? That would give Liverpool 3 x 200m services.

The Macclesfield service is a diverted Liverpool HS2 via Stafford so Liverpool gets 2tph via Crewe HS2 instead and Stoke and Macclesfield gain.

 

[mmh]

It's great that Liverpool and HS2 stirs up such controversy while Macclesfield being a terminus is perfectly reasonable.

 

[notlob.divad]

It's great that Liverpool and HS2 stirs up such controversy while Macclesfield being a terminus is perfectly reasonable.

But we are all fully aware that:
1. the Macclesfield service will actually be a 4th tph to Manchester, (But nobody wants to shout that Manchester will get a 4tph to London, 1 that doesn't use the new infrastructure.
2. The 'Preston' service will almost certainly go to Blackpool.
3. They would like the 'Crewe terminator' provided by the Liverpool Slit to go to Chester/North Wales (if only someone else would pay to install the fizzy knitting).

This is why (IMO) even if Liverpool gets a new line as part of NPR. It won't get new 400m platforms and there will be some running on exiting infrastructure. - There are not enough paths to provide the required services for Liverpool to have full gauge captive units, or doubled up sets. At least not until the Toton - Leicester - London axis of the inverted A is constructed / upgraded, as part of HS(oh we screwed up the first time).

This is what is so infuriating about the way UK decision makers have handled this. If they had said upfront we have a 50-60 year plan to build a high speed rail network. We will start with these bits London - Birmingham(HS2 phase 1), and a new Cross Pennine Route Liverpool - York (NPR), then built on the Birmingham <-> NPR link, and follow on until we have this brand new comprehensive network. There would be a lot more support from all quarters and we would end up with a much more effective and efficient network. However they are incapable of taking and selling this approach. Instead we get piecemeal projects defined in very narrow terms tested with far too specific CBRs, which will result in us getting the Manchester Airport detour, followed by the most expensive subterranean tour of Manchester City centre, all because the original project focused to narrowly on it's own BCR and not the wider picture.

 

[notlob.divad]

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

In a straight up choice of 2 between the current HS2 design and no HS2. I would vote scrap the entire thing, it would certainly do far less economic damage to my home town and many other towns like it than the current plan.

I think a new high speed network is needed. I think the scope that was given to the original HS2 designers was far too specific and as a result the money that will be spent on it will be wasted building a railway line that is compromised from its outset, particularly the section to the North West of Crewe and the branches into the middle of Leeds and Birmingham.

 

[mmh]

So the "Macclesfield" service really means 2tph from Crewe to Manchester? That makes more "sense", the idea of a service that turned at Macclesfield was confusing me.

I'm wondering now what the point of having two (or three?) different sizes of train is, if the gauge of the train won't change its seating capacity. I've read mention that continental gauge trains could be cheaper as they're "standard", but there seems to be no shortage of manufacturers willing to build British gauge trains.

The more I read about HS2, the more I come to realise how little about it I understand.

 

[Tobbes]

In a straight up choice of 2 between the current HS2 design and no HS2. I would vote scrap the entire thing, it would certainly do far less economic damage to my home town and many other towns like it than the current plan.

Where's your home town?

I think a new high speed network is needed. I think the scope that was given to the original HS2 designers was far too specific and as a result the money that will be spent on it will be wasted building a railway line that is compromised from its outset, particularly the section to the North West of Crewe and the branches into the middle of Leeds and Birmingham.

Not building Leeds or Birmingham as through statopns seems ridiculous, but it's clear we have one shot at getting the mainline built, and that scrapping it now wont release HS2 funds to other rail projects, so for me, we need to make the best of it - which should be very, very, good for the UK, and we can enhance it over time.

 

[DPWH]

I wonder how much Liverpudlians' disinclination to vote for tory MPs has to do with this.

 

[Tobbes]

I wonder how much Liverpudlians' disinclination to vote for tory MPs has to do with this.

Wasn't the Y proposed by Lord Adonis?

 

[The Planner]

But we are all fully aware that:
1. the Macclesfield service will actually be a 4th tph to Manchester, (But nobody wants to shout that Manchester will get a 4tph to London, 1 that doesn't use the new infrastructure.
2. The 'Preston' service will almost certainly go to Blackpool.
3. They would like the 'Crewe terminator' provided by the Liverpool Slit to go to Chester/North Wales (if only someone else would pay to install the fizzy knitting).

It is Macclesfield for a couple of reasons, it has already been worked out that it wouldn't get over Cheadle Hulme and Macclesfield is an easy win as it would have been laying over at Stoke otherwise. It won't be going to Blackpool, nor are there any plans to send one to Chester.

 

[mmh]

It is Macclesfield for a couple of reasons, it has already been worked out that it wouldn't get over Cheadle Hulme and Macclesfield is an easy win as it would have been laying over at Stoke otherwise. It won't be going to Blackpool, nor are there any plans to send one to Chester.

Ok, I really am confused now. If an alternative would be terminating at Stoke, does that mean there is a plan for terminating at Macclesfield, or would these services continue to Manchester?

 

[Chester1]

It's great that Liverpool and HS2 stirs up such controversy while Macclesfield being a terminus is perfectly reasonable.

So the "Macclesfield" service really means 2tph from Crewe to Manchester? That makes more "sense", the idea of a service that turned at Macclesfield was confusing me.

I'm wondering now what the point of having two (or three?) different sizes of train is, if the gauge of the train won't change its seating capacity. I've read mention that continental gauge trains could be cheaper as they're "standard", but there seems to be no shortage of manufacturers willing to build British gauge trains.

The more I read about HS2, the more I come to realise how little about it I understand.

Ok, I really am confused now. If an alternative would be terminating at Stoke, does that mean there is a plan for terminating at Macclesfield, or would these services continue to Manchester?

Its perfectly reasonable because it would be a waste of paths through Cheadle, Stockport and into Piccadilly to extend the service to Manchester when it will have 3 much faster services via Crewe (although I think only 1 will stop). Macclesfield, Stoke and Stafford are currently served by Virgin Trains therefore the options is to significantly downgrade their service or attach a 200m unit to a 200m Liverpool unit. A major complaint of HS2 has been that it won't serve intermediate WCML destinations. This remains true south of Birmingham but the plans for the classic compatible units are being altered to serve Stoke and Macclesfield (probably Blackpool and Lancaster too as extensions of the Preston terminator). The original plan would only have served Stafford, Runcorn, Liverpool, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

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.

Southport to Wigan is roughly 10 minutes quicker than Southport to Liverpool and runs on a 2tph basis through the day. In both cases the onward service to London is hourly. I doubt many people making such a journey would do so without confirming the optimal departure time from their origin. I'll agree that most recently Northern's reliability has been poor but that can hardly be expected to represent a long-term pattern. The most obvious difference between the two options is the availability of seats on the mainline train: generally speaking trains south from Preston are busier than trains south from Liverpool. Dealing with this will be one of the conundrums for the West Coast Partnership long before we have to worry about precise service levels on HS2b.

 

[Altfish]

So the "Macclesfield" service really means 2tph from Crewe to Manchester? That makes more "sense", the idea of a service that turned at Macclesfield was confusing me.

I'm wondering now what the point of having two (or three?) different sizes of train is, if the gauge of the train won't change its seating capacity. I've read mention that continental gauge trains could be cheaper as they're "standard", but there seems to be no shortage of manufacturers willing to build British gauge trains.

The more I read about HS2, the more I come to realise how little about it I understand.

Am I being stupid here; Macclesfield and Crewe are on different, unconnected lines.

 

[B&I]

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:




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.

I don't see how you derive those conclusions at all. 'Each sector' tested does not mean 'every company in Liverpool'. How do you even know what the sectors tested were ? And are you saying that KPMG somehow surveyed every company within every sector ?

The attempts by HS2's proponents to discredit the work.of HS2's own consultants is getting ridiculous.

 

[B&I]

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.

And your mind was so open in the first place (see below).

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.

Given that you're either spending much of your working day, or your days off, arguing vociferously that HS2 must be built in exactly its current form, you will forgive me for thinking that you were passionately in favour of it in its current form.

Further down, of course, you do admit to being 'passionately in favour of HS2 as is'. 'Passionately in favour' of some rail infrastructure. Not what most people associate with 'passion'.

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.

How much do you think it would cost then, oh all-knowing one ? The point isn't really how much exactly it would cost. The point is that the decision where to draw the line is a political one, not the result of some law of nature kicking in.

+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.

Oh, so you're taking the average from the KPMG report now are you ? Yet yesterday 20 Miles More were dreadful, awful people for referring to average time reductions. Why don't you remind people of the actual range of figures in the KPMG report so that your comments become accurate ?

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.

Nice deflection. However, getting back to my comment and your posting, you now seem to be arguing that Liverpool will not suffer economically through the lack of a high speed line from HS2 because HS3 will provide one. So, bearing in mind that HS3 has about as much chance of happening as you answering a question straight, why do you continue to argue that the lack of a high speed line will not affevt Liverpool economically.

Oh btw why are you so 'concerned' about phase 2b in particular ? Phase 2a, after all, will deliver substantial benefits to a lot of places, Liverpool included (which is why I support it in outline, even if, in my unexpert opinion, partocular aspects of it could be planned better). Why is 2b the mahic number for old Tobbes ?

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.

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.

Clearly you have never Googled 'unjustified superiority complex'.

No, you should provide some more convincing evidence of this wholesale civil service relocation of which you speak if you want to rely on it. Currently it seems that mass decentralisation under this government is about as likely as 'NPR'.

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.

Would you care to explain how, if at all, those other factors will affect investment in Liverpool's particular case ?

 

[B&I]

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.

Do you happen to know the BCR of the high speed spur into Manchester ?

 

[B&I]

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.



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



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

Yeah, the HS2 trunk obvioualy follows an exactly triangular route.

I stand by my previous comment. The lengths which certain people, cheifly you, are going to to argue against a high speed line to Liverpool are astonishing. They're also side-splitting

 

[B&I]

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.

I'm in favour of a high speed line, beginning at Liverpool, running via Warrington, and running on an optimal alignment to central Manchester and across the Pennines. I'd make that a priority over HS2, as fixing the awful links between most places in the north seems to me more likely to attract investment to the north than getting people from the north to head offices in London faster. However, once the line is built it can do double duty as a Liverpool-HS2 connection

 

[Altfish]

I'm in favour of a high speed line, beginning at Liverpool, running via Warrington, and running on an optimal alignment to central Manchester and across the Pennines. I'd make that a priority over HS2, as fixing the awful links between most places in the north seems to me more likely to attract investment to the north than getting people from the north to head offices in London faster. However, once the line is built it can do double duty as a Liverpool-HS2 connection

Why can't that happen as well as HS2?

 

[krus_aragon]

I'm in favour of a high speed line, beginning at Liverpool, running via Warrington, and running on an optimal alignment to central Manchester and across the Pennines. I'd make that a priority over HS2, as fixing the awful links between most places in the north seems to me more likely to attract investment to the north than getting people from the north to head offices in London faster. However, once the line is built it can do double duty as a Liverpool-HS2 connection

That sounds like a good objective to me. I'd personally qualify it a bit, putting it as a priority over HS2 phase 2, as I feel that the southern WCML urgently needs the extra capacity provided by phase 1. But it's still a worthy goal.

Sadly the scope given to HS2 Ltd(?) wasn't broad enough to consider such an approach, and with the champion of Northern Powerhouse Rail gone in the aftermath of the referendum (and the subsequent distraction of leaving the EU) I fear it's unlikely to gain much traction in the near future. It seems to be politically easier to add on to the existing initiative of HS2 than promote a different approach to things. Plus, of course, the fact that the decision-makers are down in London...

 

[The Ham]

I don't see how you derive those conclusions at all. 'Each sector' tested does not mean 'every company in Liverpool'. How do you even know what the sectors tested were ? And are you saying that KPMG somehow surveyed every company within every sector ?


The attempts by HS2's proponents to discredit the work.of HS2's own consultants is getting ridiculous.

I didn't say that the sectors were in Liverpool, I said that the report used UK data (i.e. the whole of the UK), which by definition includes Liverpool.


I'm not discrediting the report, I understand the purpose of a stress test and for what purpose it is used. Which I have explained before. Which is why the "risk" is an imaged one.

Please explain the purpose of a stress test, as I feel that you don't understand it, and without understanding what it does and why it has been done you will not understand why the "risk" exists and why those which understand stress tests don't think it isa problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think a new high speed network is needed

I don't. What is needed is capacity on the south WCML. To deliver that, the right thing to do (and what is being done) is a German or Swiss style solution of a "bypass" type line rather than a Romance-style separate network.

The UK doesn't really need high speed in and of itself[1] - the only reason I support HS2 at all is capacity on the overused south WCML.

[1] Reason being that the only journeys long enough to *significantly* benefit over the present setup are those to Scotland which are a relative minority. The gain of a few minutes on London to Birmingham/Manchester is just not worth it on its own.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm in favour of a high speed line, beginning at Liverpool, running via Warrington, and running on an optimal alignment to central Manchester and across the Pennines. I'd make that a priority over HS2, as fixing the awful links between most places in the north seems to me more likely to attract investment to the north than getting people from the north to head offices in London faster. However, once the line is built it can do double duty as a Liverpool-HS2 connection

I'm unconvinced that that is a sensible thing to do when the same money would be better spent on getting the North's existing network up to scratch - wire the lot and get long trains running for a start.

I would be happy for the Birmingham-Manchester part of HS2 to be dropped to allow for the funding for this. The only bit that to me has a strong case is the bit south of Birmingham due to that being where south WCML capacity is direly needed (for local/regional services and freight).

 

[The Ham]

I'm unconvinced that that is a sensible thing to do when the same money would be better spent on getting the North's existing network up to scratch - wire the lot and get long trains running for a start.

I would be happy for the Birmingham-Manchester part of HS2 to be dropped to allow for the funding for this. The only bit that to me has a strong case is the bit south of Birmingham due to that being where south WCML capacity is direly needed (for local/regional services and freight).

HS2 will release platform capacity in Manchester and Leeds, as such HS2 will provide benefits to local services which will be able to call at those stations.

By having a dedicated HS line between Birmingham and Leeds as well as Birmingham and Mamchester it then frees up capacity on the existing lines to provide further extra local services.

 

[Chester1]

HS2 will release platform capacity in Manchester and Leeds, as such HS2 will provide benefits to local services which will be able to call at those stations.

By having a dedicated HS line between Birmingham and Leeds as well as Birmingham and Mamchester it then frees up capacity on the existing lines to provide further extra local services.

Definitely. I live in Stockport and it will in all likelihood lose all three of its London services and probably one out of two Birmingham services but it will be benefited by HS2. Southbound, out of 13tph there are 7 long distance services (3tph London, 2tph Birmingham (Bournemouth and Plymouth) and 2tph Sheffield (Norwich and Cleethorpes). In the long term there should be at least another 2tph to Sheffield and 5tph of extra commuter services. With a similar mix of rolling stock it would be easier to path more than 13tph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 will release platform capacity in Manchester and Leeds, as such HS2 will provide benefits to local services which will be able to call at those stations.

By having a dedicated HS line between Birmingham and Leeds as well as Birmingham and Mamchester it then frees up capacity on the existing lines to provide further extra local services.

True. I suppose the almost entertainingly bad service at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel could be upgraded to something more Merseyrail like, for instance.

 

[B&I]

Why can't that happen as well as HS2?

I'd be happy if it happened at the same time as HS2. Hoewver, I.am repeatedly told on here that tjere are limited resources available for new rail infrastructure, so I'm setting out the order in which I'd prefer those limited resources to be deployed

 

[B&I]

That sounds like a good objective to me. I'd personally qualify it a bit, putting it as a priority over HS2 phase 2, as I feel that the southern WCML urgently needs the extra capacity provided by phase 1. But it's still a worthy goal.

Sadly the scope given to HS2 Ltd(?) wasn't broad enough to consider such an approach, and with the champion of Northern Powerhouse Rail gone in the aftermath of the referendum (and the subsequent distraction of leaving the EU) I fear it's unlikely to gain much traction in the near future. It seems to be politically easier to add on to the existing initiative of HS2 than promote a different approach to things. Plus, of course, the fact that the decision-makers are down in London...

This is it in a nutshell. Decisions are taken according to political clout, rather than any other factor.

I agree that something like phase 1 is needed because of the relative slowness of the southern WCML, and its lack of capacity. And of course I am comfortable with something which should confer the same benefits on everywhere currently served from Euston (and St Pancras, if phase 1 had included a spur to the MML somewhere between Rugby and Leicester). Personally, I would have preferred a route prioritising capacity over speed, if possible with 4 tracking to the point (probably north of Rugby) where it rejoined the WCML