HS2 and Liverpool

[driver_m]

I have driven in Manchester, yes, and it's nothing like as bad as London.

But even so, sorting out the disgrace that is Northern Rail, and getting enough capacity on TPE (let's say the present timetable but 8x23m on all trains) would make significant inroads.

Not having that for one second . The East Lancs road is a disgrace.. who puts speed bumps, a 20mph limit and lights every 5 seconds on a dual carriageway that was once the premier road between Manchester and Liverpool. And then wonder why Regent Road gets gridlocked (A57 for the M602). The M60 regularly goes into meltdown every bit as bad the M25. It is as bad as London as the recent traffic survey for cities outside London proved. The congestion is shocking now .

 

[B&I]

I have driven in Manchester, yes, and it's nothing like as bad as London.

But even so, sorting out the disgrace that is Northern Rail, and getting enough capacity on TPE (let's say the present timetable but 8x23m on all trains) would make significant inroads.

The National Infrastructure Commission beg to differ. Manchester is Britain's most congested city, followed by Liverpool. The rail congestion statistics only tell part of the story

 

[The Ham]

The National Infrastructure Commission beg to differ. Manchester is Britain's most congested city, followed by Liverpool. The rail congestion statistics only tell part of the story

Outside London that is.

 

[B&I]

Outside London that is.

The report I saw suggested they had the worst traffic bar none. Even if London's traffic is worse, that's not an excuse for doing nothing elsewhere

 

[Bletchleyite]

The report I saw suggested they had the worst traffic bar none. Even if London's traffic is worse, that's not an excuse for doimg nothing elsewhere

I'm not proposing doing nothing. I'm proposing platform extensions, more than doubling train lengths and Picc P15/16 as being a good start around the North.

 

[The Ham]

The report I saw suggested they had the worst traffic bar none. Even if London's traffic is worse, that's not an excuse for doimg nothing elsewhere

https://news.sky.com/story/do-you-live-in-one-of-englands-worst-cities-for-traffic-11492971

Title: Revealed: England's worst cities for traffic jams (outside London)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/worlds-most-congested-cities/

London was 2nd and Manchester was 18th

 

[6Gman]

A question for supporters of HS2 into Liverpool.

What would the service from/to Runcorn then look like?

Currently 1tph Euston (plus a few extras); 2tph Birmingham. 1tph Chester soon.

Thus 3 (soon 4)tph to Liverpool.

 

[Ianno87]

A question for supporters of HS2 into Liverpool.

What would the service from/to Runcorn then look like?

Currently 1tph Euston (plus a few extras); 2tph Birmingham. 1tph Chester soon.

Thus 3 (soon 4)tph to Liverpool.

In fairness, Runcorn doesn't really serve Runcorn for the likes of London traffic - it's a railhead from north Cheshire and south/east Merseyside e.g. Widnes.

 

[B&I]

https://news.sky.com/story/do-you-live-in-one-of-englands-worst-cities-for-traffic-11492971

Title: Revealed: England's worst cities for traffic jams (outside London)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/worlds-most-congested-cities/

London was 2nd and Manchester was 18th

https://news.sky.com/story/do-you-live-in-one-of-englands-worst-cities-for-traffic-11492971

Title: Revealed: England's worst cities for traffic jams (outside London)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/worlds-most-congested-cities/

London was 2nd and Manchester was 18th

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, the second report refers to Europe as a whole and its relevance to the present discussion is not readily apparent.

The first report referred to there was for Britain, and stated that Manchester's traffic congestion is the country's second worst. Which city, well-known for not being a priority for any additional rail infrastructure, came third ?

 

[B&I]

A question for supporters of HS2 into Liverpool.

What would the service from/to Runcorn then look like?

Currently 1tph Euston (plus a few extras); 2tph Birmingham. 1tph Chester soon.

Thus 3 (soon 4)tph to Liverpool.

Runcorn, which at less than 800,000 passengers p.a. has usage comparable to medium-popularity Merseyrail stations ?

It would be replaced by Warrington as a railhead for the area and continue to be served by local trains, as everyone who isn't trying to think up reasons to keep Liverpool off the high speed network would realise

 

[The Ham]

The National Infrastructure Commission beg to differ. Manchester is Britain's most congested city, followed by Liverpool. The rail congestion statistics only tell part of the story

The report I saw suggested they had the worst traffic bar none. Even if London's traffic is worse, that's not an excuse for doing nothing elsewhere

https://news.sky.com/story/do-you-live-in-one-of-englands-worst-cities-for-traffic-11492971

Title: Revealed: England's worst cities for traffic jams (outside London)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/worlds-most-congested-cities/

London was 2nd and Manchester was 18th

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, the second report refers to Europe as a whole and its relevance to the present discussion is not readily apparent.

The first report referred to there was for Britain, and stated that Manchester's traffic congestion is the country's second worst. Which city, well-known for not being a priority for any additional rail infrastructure, came third ?

I wasn't doubting that Liverpool had bad traffic, I was pointing out that it wasn't second after Manchester, it was in fact third as London was first.

How can traffic be so bad in London that it comes second in Europe, with Manchester coming in 18th and Liverpool not even making it into the top 25 which means that Liverpool is the second most congested city in the UK? (Which again was the point). It also shows that although Liverpool Congress in third in the UK it, along with Manchester, is noticeably below London. This may well explain why there tends to be more rail investment in London and why it's not such a conspiracy that Liverpool doesn't get as much.

 

[6Gman]

Runcorn, which at less than 800,000 passengers p.a. has usage comparable to medium-popularity Merseyrail stations ?

It would be replaced by Warrington as a railhead for the area and continue to be served by local trains, as everyone who isn't trying to think up reasons to keep Liverpool off the high speed network would realise

I don't think there was any need for that last comment. It was a genuine enquiry - and I suspect Halton Borough Council, for example, would be raising concerns.

 

[B&I]

I wasn't doubting that Liverpool had bad traffic, I was pointing out that it wasn't second after Manchester, it was in fact third as London was first.

How can traffic be so bad in London that it comes second in Europe, with Manchester coming in 18th and Liverpool not even making it into the top 25 which means that Liverpool is the second most congested city in the UK? (Which again was the point). It also shows that although Liverpool Congress in third in the UK it, along with Manchester, is noticeably below London. This may well explain why there tends to be more rail investment in London and why it's not such a conspiracy that Liverpool doesn't get as much.

Who said it was a conspiracy ? Underinvestment outside London is just a habit of mind among tue people who run Britain

 

[B&I]

I don't think there was any need for that last comment. It was a genuine enquiry - and I suspect Halton Borough Council, for example, would be raising concerns.

Nothing to do with your expressed opposition to better rail services to Liverpool then.

I suspect Halton BC will be worrying less as the bridge tolls discourage use of Runcorn as a railhead.

 

[The Ham]

Who said it was a conspiracy ? Underinvestment outside London is just a habit of mind among tue people who run Britain

No one said it was a conspiracy, I was exaggerating for effect. The point I was making though was that given that London is the most congested city in the UK and only one other UK city makes it into the top 25 that the third most congested city in the UK may not actually count that much.

As an example, within my immediate family my household income is likely to be the second lowest. However if I look at a larger sample size I would say that it's above average and so not needing of additional support.

The same is true of cites and their congestion, in a small sample size you can havea city which comes out badly, but when you compare it to others it'sa long way down the list.

 

[B&I]

No one said it was a conspiracy, I was exaggerating for effect. The point I was making though was that given that London is the most congested city in the UK and only one other UK city makes it into the top 25 that the third most congested city in the UK may not actually count that much.

As an example, within my immediate family my household income is likely to be the second lowest. However if I look at a larger sample size I would say that it's above average and so not needing of additional support.

The same is true of cites and their congestion, in a small sample size you can havea city which comes out badly, but when you compare it to others it'sa long way down the list.

Supposedly, we invest in the railways in this country to further economic development. Road congestion costs the economy a colossal amount every year. I'm.not too worried where exactly our cities are in the European statistics. If they're congested, that needs to be addressed

 

[notlob.divad]

A question for supporters of HS2 into Liverpool.

What would the service from/to Runcorn then look like?

Currently 1tph Euston (plus a few extras); 2tph Birmingham. 1tph Chester soon.

Thus 3 (soon 4)tph to Liverpool.

That's easy. 2tph ormskirk to crewe. 2tph ormskirk to chester. Plus a share of all that freed up WCML capacity that everywhere else in the NW is getting a share of.

 

[notlob.divad]

The same is true of cites and their congestion, in a small sample size you can havea city which comes out badly, but when you compare it to others it'sa long way down the list.

So why limit your sample size to a European list when across the world London doesn't even come close to the top.

The only list that matters is the one that is being funded out of the same pot. So to the UK government funding UK infrastructure investment, that is the UK list.

 

[notlob.divad]

I suspect Halton BC will be worrying less as the bridge tolls discourage use of Runcorn as a railhead.

That would be the same Halton BC who voluntarily joined the Liverpool City Region, elected the Metro Mayor - Steve Rotherham, who has been a vocal political critic of Liverpool being excluded from the HS2 network, and along with his Manchester equivalent have been the two most prominent politicians of pushing for a Liverpool HS2 link, be it stand-alone or the 1st part of a wider pan north line.

 

[6Gman]

Nothing to do with your expressed opposition to better rail services to Liverpool then.

I suspect Halton BC will be worrying less as the bridge tolls discourage use of Runcorn as a railhead.

My "expressed opposition to better rail services to Liverpool"? Just a reminder that upthread I actually indicated my support for a HS2 link to Liverpool. The business case, I suspect, is weak but I believe its regenerative potential outweighs that.

However it's not me you need to persuade and you're going to struggle if you badmouth everyone who doesn't agree 100% with everything you say.

 

[6Gman]

That's easy. 2tph ormskirk to crewe. 2tph ormskirk to chester. Plus a share of all that freed up WCML capacity that everywhere else in the NW is getting a share of.

So Runcorn loses its through trains to everywhere south of Crewe? And its fast trains to Liverpool?

 

[notlob.divad]

I'm not proposing doing nothing. I'm proposing platform extensions, more than doubling train lengths and Picc P15/16 as being a good start around the North.

You won't hear any complaints from here for platform extensions and running 8 car 319s on all the suburban services, as you say it would be a good start. But what the whole of the northern network really needs to make it the attractive proposition that travel by rail in the south is and thus make the franchises self sufficient is an increase in frequency and a reduction in the centre to centre journey times.

Those can both only be achieved with a major infrastructure upgrade of which a new HS line into Liverpool is the first part. The biggest block to that is the badly designed route of the HS line into Manchester, which is why my most significant objection to HS2 is to the alignments north of Crewe which compromise both the HS2 and any future NPR projects.

 

[B&I]

My "expressed opposition to better rail services to Liverpool"? Just a reminder that upthread I actually indicated my support for a HS2 link to Liverpool. The business case, I suspect, is weak but I believe its regenerative potential outweighs that.

However it's not me you need to persuade and you're going to struggle if you badmouth everyone who doesn't agree 100% with everything you say.

Sorry, must have missed your support for better links to Liverpool amidst your various comments about how lightly loaded you always find Liverpool trains to be.

You're right, it's not my job to persuade anyone on this forum. My interest stems mostly from observing the inconsistency and illogicality of most of the arguments deployed against a high speed line to Liverpool.

Sorry as well if I've overstepped the mark on how I address myself to you. I had thought I was confining myself to your expressed opinions, rather than badmouthing you personally

 

[6Gman]

Sorry, must have missed your support for better links to Liverpool amidst your various comments about how lightly loaded you always find Liverpool trains to be.

You're right, it's not my job to persuade anyone on this forum. My interest stems mostly from observing the inconsistency and illogicality of most of the arguments deployed against a high speed line to Liverpool.

Sorry as well if I've overstepped the mark on how I address myself to you. I had thought I was confining myself to your expressed opinions, rather than badmouthing you personally

Thank you.

I am - broadly - on the same side in wanting to see Liverpool (one of my favourite cities) given the opportunity to develop. However, we are all allowed to see different ways in which that can best be achieved.

 

[B&I]

So Runcorn loses its through trains to everywhere south of Crewe? And its fast trains to Liverpool?

As notlob commented, there would still be scope for fairly good services to Runcorn using released WCML capacity. Here would be my ideal world suggestions for Runcorn.

In addition to any Merseyrail stopping service running through from Edge Hill onto the present-day Northern Line (perhaps 2 TPH continuing to Chester via the Halton Curve, 2 TPH on to Crewe), there could still be
(on a 1 TPH each basis)
a. something like today's Liverpool-Brum service (in addition to faster services via HS2)
b. a Lime St High Level-Manchester Airport-Piccaddilly, via a western link ti the preeent airport station (a hell of a lot more use than a high speed station in a field a couple of miles away)
c. a Lime Street-Crewe-Derby-Nottingham-East Anglia service (taking advantage of reduced conflicts at Crewe) to replace the present day Liverpool-Norwich (which would be diverted to 'NPR' and probably sent to Hull after Sheffield)
d. whatever longer distance services are being sent via the Halton Curve - hopefully, hourly trains to the Marches and south Wales.

Runcorn would struggle to justify direct London services if HS2 served Warrington Bank Quay twice hourly and took over as a railhead for the area, but would apart from that have much more frequent and diverse services. Easy connections would be maintained to Crewe and via an enhanced, electrified Manchester-Chester service, through Runcorn East and an interchange station at Beechwood, and perhaps with fast buses feeding off its busways to get people from the town itself to Warrington.

In other words, properly designed as part of an enhanced network generally, a Liverpool high speed line could bring benefits to a lot of other places too

 

[B&I]

You won't hear any complaints from here for platform extensions and running 8 car 319s on all the suburban services, as you say it would be a good start. But what the whole of the northern network really needs to make it the attractive proposition that travel by rail in the south is and thus make the franchises self sufficient is an increase in frequency and a reduction in the centre to centre journey times.

Those can both only be achieved with a major infrastructure upgrade of which a new HS line into Liverpool is the first part. The biggest block to that is the badly designed route of the HS line into Manchester, which is why my most significant objection to HS2 is to the alignments north of Crewe which compromise both the HS2 and any future NPR projects.

Nutshell !

 

[The Ham]

So why limit your sample size to a European list when across the world London doesn't even come close to the top.

The only list that matters is the one that is being funded out of the same pot. So to the UK government funding UK infrastructure investment, that is the UK list.

The report is calling for circa £40 billion of investment, which will be shared between the cities. (Note including London). As such Liverpool could be receiving a significat amount of funding if the government follows thorough.

Maybe London is not that close (according to Tom-Tom, it's 25th), but still a lot higher up than Liverpool (75th on the Tom-Tom list).

The point is that if Manchester has a congestion level (IIRC something like plus 75 seconds per mile over the uncongested figure) London is significantly slower than this and Liverpool is slightly faster. However the difference (other than London) between cities is fairly small.

 

[Ianno87]

The biggest block to that is the badly designed route of the HS line into Manchester, which is why my most significant objection to HS2 is to the alignments north of Crewe which compromise both the HS2 and any future NPR projects.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm intrigued - what's your reasoning behind this statement, may I ask?

 

[notlob.divad]

My reasoning for this statement is laid out in multiple posts earlier in this thread. Here are a collated selection of quotes from me in this thread that set out the main thrust of my argument.

The dedicated HS line into Manchester, 'frees up' the wrong platform capacity. Manchester is desperately short of cross-city platform capacity and terminating bays facing west. All HS2 is providing is longer Terminating platforms from the same direction that most of Manchester's Platforms currently face. Once again, people with a blinkered view of the South East of the Country have designed a solution that may be suitable for the South East, but is in no way suitable for the North of England. In the South East, you have one overpowering city that people want to get in and out of and once there can use the excellent, well funded local transport to get across and around it. In the North, no individual city is so dominant and overpowering that people do not want to travel across it to a different city on the other side. HS2 as designed (certainly in the North West) compounds the problems we already have rather than solving them, i.e. too much terminating capacity from one direction and not enough cross city - intercity capacity

a parkway accessed from Junction 8 of the M56, would be as beneficial to the people of the Wilmslow Triangle as one accessed from Junction 5 (More so when you consider Macclesfield will be getting it's own direct service). The business park could easily be located on a better - derelict site where less environmental damage would be done and is closer to a supply of labour. The Airport itself is already served by a better located station with services from its natural catchment area that are poorly utilised.

At the same time, the designed alignment from the HS2 trunk line to the centre of Manchester is suboptimal for both the London - Manchester journey time and any future duel use as NPR or otherwise. It fails to deliver Manchester with the desperately needed cross city capacity or western facing terminal capacity, instead replicating what the city already has. It leaves trains facing in entirely the wrong direction hindering future expansion of a high speed network resulting in the potential for a further expensive 180 degree U turned tunnel under Manchester city centre.

That is why I don't want to stop HS2 being built. I have a huge problem with the routing of HS2 north of Crewe and a smaller problem with the Branches into Leeds and Birmingham. Build away to Crewe, get started on the eastern Branch towards Sheffield and Leeds. But hold off on the Crewe-Manchester Alignment until a clear picture of NPR is developed so that the infrastructure can be built to maximise the benefits of the whole rather than the initial limited scope given to HS2.

We are told that a Liverpool HS2 spur is poor value for money as it would only carry 2 tph. (Actually 4tph, 2 to London plus the two to Birmingham which could also switch) Whilst the Manchester spur is good value for money as it can carry the 3tph (actually 5tph, 3 to London and 2 to Birmingham). So 1 TPH is the difference between a good value for money spur and a bad value for money spur.

So.. we are told, we can use the spare capacity on both branches as the western half of NPR to increase the value for money of the branches. Therefore the premise of Liverpool getting a branch at all is predicated on the best cost benefit analysis being found for NPR. The lower the CBR the lower the chances of NPR happening the lower the chances of Liverpool getting a HS2 branch. Therefore the alignment into Manchester, the extra costs and reduced benefits it creates for NPR, is the biggest obstacle to Cross North connectivity and from this thread's point of view Liverpool getting a full HS2 connection.

 

[frodshamfella]

Runcorn, which at less than 800,000 passengers p.a. has usage comparable to medium-popularity Merseyrail stations ?

It would be replaced by Warrington as a railhead for the area and continue to be served by local trains, as everyone who isn't trying to think up reasons to keep Liverpool off the high speed network would realise

I use Runcorn Station to go to London. Comparing Runcorn and Warrington BQ which I could use but don't because the traffic in and around there is awful. Also car park is much better at Runcorn.