HS2 and Liverpool

[Shaw S Hunter]

Secondly, much bigger ? Really ?

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

Still peddling this misleading data? Perhaps you haven't checked the other thread so I'll re-post what I stated there:

You should actually consider where the data in that Wikipedia article comes from. It's the result of the EU's ESPON project which is a bureaucratic exercise designed to inform the structural regeneration process. At one point that project, when talking about regions, thought it appropriate to lump Ashford (Kent) and Dover with Calais and Lille! If you look at the linked article in more detail it would have us believe that places like Southend, Reading, Basingstoke and Haywards Heath are part of London, that Chesterfield and Doncaster are part of Sheffield and that Macclesfield is part of Manchester. As previously mentioned it lists Chester, Warrington and Wigan as being part of Liverpool, but since Wigan is part of Greater Manchester its population has been double counted. That's not what I would call reliable data and therefore not useful in support of your argument.

From what I have read about ESPON it seems that this data was influenced by travel-to-work patterns but ignores the fact that many so-called dormitory towns supply labour to more than one place and that two-way commuter flows also exist. Bureaucrats in Brussels however are minded to ignore such details in order to simplify their tasks.

I have also checked the 20 Miles More campaign's report about HS2 to Liverpool and they too have used the same unreliable figures. It's a shame that people campaigning on such a serious issue don't take more care to check their information. The joys of living in a post-truth world I suppose...

 

[The Ham]

Still peddling this misleading data? Perhaps you haven't checked the other thread so I'll re-post what I stated there:

You should actually consider where the data in that Wikipedia article comes from. It's the result of the EU's ESPON project which is a bureaucratic exercise designed to inform the structural regeneration process. At one point that project, when talking about regions, thought it appropriate to lump Ashford (Kent) and Dover with Calais and Lille! If you look at the linked article in more detail it would have us believe that places like Southend, Reading, Basingstoke and Haywards Heath are part of London, that Chesterfield and Doncaster are part of Sheffield and that Macclesfield is part of Manchester. As previously mentioned it lists Chester, Warrington and Wigan as being part of Liverpool, but since Wigan is part of Greater Manchester its population has been double counted. That's not what I would call reliable data and therefore not useful in support of your argument.

From what I have read about ESPON it seems that this data was influenced by travel-to-work patterns but ignores the fact that many so-called dormitory towns supply labour to more than one place and that two-way commuter flows also exist. Bureaucrats in Brussels however are minded to ignore such details in order to simplify their tasks.

I have also checked the 20 Miles More campaign's report about HS2 to Liverpool and they too have used the same unreliable figures. It's a shame that people campaigning on such a serious issue don't take more care to check their information. The joys of living in a post-truth world I suppose...

A more reliable set of data can be found here:

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

 

[Camden]

More reliable that what though? Birkenhead and Liverpool are counted separately, yet the subject is transport so surely where people catch their trains from, where their centre of gravity is (Liverpool city centre) might be relevant! Meanwhile, what would count for "Leeds" is 1,777,934, but that contains Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield, Huddersfield and Halifax - all very different places, pulling demand in different directions. In fact I'd suggest including those others to come to a figure for Leeds would be very much like adding Chester, etc, to Liverpool's figs.

I see lots of issues with Shaw's comments, but the big question for me is why people defend HS2's decision making so rabidly when it's obvious they got it wrong. Arguing about which set of figures to use is minutiae versus that single fact.

Post-truth world would be people like former transport ministers bandying around broken urban stats as justification for wrong decisions, rather than those pointing out that the figures are broken.

 

[Tobbes]

I see lots of issues with Shaw's comments, but the big question for me is why people defend HS2's decision making so rabidly when it's obvious they got it wrong. Arguing about which set of figures to use is minutiae versus that single fact.

I'm not sure why it is so obvious HS2 have it wrong? Use of Classic Compatibles for 2 tph seems entirely reasonsble rather than building a new HSR alignment.

 

[Camden]

These are political decisions for billions of pounds of other people's money, so the politics is vital, and it is here that Liverpool is losing out.

It would seem that it is actually obvious to yourself.

 

[Tobbes]

It would seem that it is actually obvious to yourself.

I'm not sure why it isn't obvious to you, @Camden

 

[deltic]

HS2 was designed to relieve pressure on the WCML, ECML and MML. Its 3 main services ie London to, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham serve the 3 largest revenue markets that rail has. London to Manchester generates 3 times the revenue of London to Liverpool. The route to Leeds also serves York and Newcastle (which between them generate around twice as much revenue to London as Liverpool-London does). Given limited resources, HS2 has come up with a sensible and optimal decision.

By continuingly adding new routes and additions to HS2 at this stage the less chance it will have of ever being built. When the motorway network was built the whole system wasnt built in one go but over 40/50 years. Since then growing nimbyism and environmental constraints makes it even longer to build such major infrastructure.

The chances of HS2 being built between London to Birmingham is still no better than 50:50, to Crewe is probably the same while to Leeds and Manchester is probably no higher than 1 in 5. We may end up with Liverpool being the best served northern location!

By the way I'm an economist (but not a noted one) and as the old joke goes get 2 economists in a room and you will get 3 different opinions.

 

[Tobbes]

HS2 was designed to relieve pressure on the WCML, ECML and MML. Its 3 main services ie London to, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham serve the 3 largest revenue markets that rail has. London to Manchester generates 3 times the revenue of London to Liverpool. The route to Leeds also serves York and Newcastle (which between them generate around twice as much revenue to London as Liverpool-London does). Given limited resources, HS2 has come up with a sensible and optimal decision.

By continuingly adding new routes and additions to HS2 at this stage the less chance it will have of ever being built. When the motorway network was built the whole system wasnt built in one go but over 40/50 years. Since then growing nimbyism and environmental constraints makes it even longer to build such major infrastructure.

The chances of HS2 being built between London to Birmingham is still no better than 50:50, to Crewe is probably the same while to Leeds and Manchester is probably no higher than 1 in 5. We may end up with Liverpool being the best served northern location!

By the way I'm an economist (but not a noted one) and as the old joke goes get 2 economists in a room and you will get 3 different opinions.

I'd hope that the chances for Phase 1 will improve once the digging starts, @deltic . But sobering thoughts none the less.

 

[tbtc]

It's hard to see how 2 tph with at least a 32 min saving over existing schedules to London will hurt Liverpool

I agree, but logic and reasoning seem to go out of the window when discussing HS2 and/or Liverpool - you'd think that bringing Liverpool - London into something equivalent to Norwich/Southampton - London would be a positive thing - a half hourly service taking around ninety minutes seems pretty good to me - but Something Something Manchester Something

 

[B&I]

The report says that it's more likely to grow than shrink on a straight line between the two quoted figures.

However very rarely in the real world do the outlying figures result in a likely result. For instance when taking a sample there's one or two on the outer limits and sometimes there's a gap before the next few in before having lots broadly around the middle.

As a example if you were to look at traffic speeds of a 30mph road you may get a speed of 45 but there may only be two or three others recorded at over 40, there may then be another 8 over 35 with 75 or so being between 25 and 35 with then a small selection of vehicles traveling less than 25.

As such there's a risk that an accident on that road will be caused by a car traveling at 45, however even taking into account the higher risk of having an accident when traveling faster the biggest likelihood is that it would be a vehicle traveling in the 25-35mph range.




I would assume from the above that you are a noted economist then! As such you will be able to explain to us how something at one of the outer edges of a range is most likely to happen.



No where had anyone said that Liverpool doesn't matter. What had been said was that the impact at an individual level within Liverpool could likely be offset (either in part or fully) by those who loose out being able to find employment elsewhere nearby.

That is a fairly reasonable thing to say, as I don't know about others but I've lived and worked in a mixture of places from a 5 minute walk to an hour's train journey between the two, as well as having two of my employers relocate more than 5 miles each time (one was to my benefit in that it was closer and one resulted in a longer journey).

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

 

[Tobbes]

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

For those of us who aren't familiar with this question, could you point us to what you're referring to please?

 

[B&I]

For those of us who aren't familiar with this question, could you point us to what you're referring to please?

The KPMG report, and the FoI requests made by the BBC, linked to on the thread from which this one was spun off, and referred to by The Ham above.

 

[Tobbes]

If you're talking about this table, @B&I (I can't find the report itself), then it shows that in some analysis from 2013 suggested that there are a range of outcomes from HS2 that range from -0.4% of Liverpool GDP to +1.2% of GDP. This seems like a perfectly reasonable impact range, and not all outcomes are equally likely - indeed, given a bell curve of probability the most likely outcome will be a low net positive (say +0.25% - +0.5%) for Liverpool.

So the question is why is there any risk of economic shrinkage? Who knows, but an educated guess is that if HS2 didn't stimulate Liverpool's economy *at all* and led to firms leaving to go up the road to Manchester becuase of the HS2 link, then it could - but is unlikely to - lead to economic shrinkage in Liverpool. But then it is (very) unlikely that there will be no positive effect from HS2 at all.

I'd politely suggest that hanging your hat on a single study from five years ago, and then only looking at the worst case scenario is a pretty weak basis for opposing something. But let's play this out. Even if this 2013 projection were correct, and the worst case scenario were delivered, Liverpool's loss would be more than offset by the NW regional gains from HS2 (Manchester's minimum gains alone wipe out Liverpool's worst case losses) making the decision to go with HS2 clearly a good idea.

The more nuanced question of whether it is worth building a dedicated HSR into Liverpool will depend on the BCR - but you'd need a very strong case to show that the loss of 8-13 minutes* by using a conventional 100/125 alignment for the 39 miles to HS2 (source: 20 miles more FAQ) is worth the cost of building an HSR alignment through Merseyside - what's your proposal for where the line should go? How much would it cost? What benefits would it actually deliver?

*Running time for 39 miles at 225 mph 10m 24s; at 125 mph 18m 43s; at 100 mph 23m 24s: of course, the time savings would actually be less than this because the train would be accellerating from zero and decellerating to stop at Liverpool, but let's ignore that.

 

[B&I]

More reliable that what though? Birkenhead and Liverpool are counted separately, yet the subject is transport so surely where people catch their trains from, where their centre of gravity is (Liverpool city centre) might be relevant! Meanwhile, what would count for "Leeds" is 1,777,934, but that contains Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield, Huddersfield and Halifax - all very different places, pulling demand in different directions. In fact I'd suggest including those others to come to a figure for Leeds would be very much like adding Chester, etc, to Liverpool's figs.

I see lots of issues with Shaw's comments, but the big question for me is why people defend HS2's decision making so rabidly when it's obvious they got it wrong. Arguing about which set of figures to use is minutiae versus that single fact.

Post-truth world would be people like former transport ministers bandying around broken urban stats as justification for wrong decisions, rather than those pointing out that the figures are broken.

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

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

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

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

 

[Tobbes]

Oh, @B&I, the 20 Miles More FAQ is a pretty poor document - it doesn't, for instance, explain where these 20 miles will go, and how this will save 24 minutes (72 mins versus 96 mins) -- perhaps you can enlighten us, as the document certainly does not. (The more likely reduction is the 8-13 mins I suggest above).

It is particularly egregious to claim that the journey time on HS2 to Liverpool will be 103 mins by averaging the Staffords (110 mins) with the non-Staffords (96 mins); the reality is that time-sensitive travellers will select the faster service. And do we have any confidence in their c.£2bn costing? Have they done any detailed design work to support them? It's not obvious - the absence of a map is pretty telling...

All this FAQ suggests to me is that we should quadruple Weaverham and Winsford.

 

[B&I]

HS2 was designed to relieve pressure on the WCML, ECML and MML. Its 3 main services ie London to, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham serve the 3 largest revenue markets that rail has. London to Manchester generates 3 times the revenue of London to Liverpool. The route to Leeds also serves York and Newcastle (which between them generate around twice as much revenue to London as Liverpool-London does). Given limited resources, HS2 has come up with a sensible and optimal decision.

By continuingly adding new routes and additions to HS2 at this stage the less chance it will have of ever being built. When the motorway network was built the whole system wasnt built in one go but over 40/50 years. Since then growing nimbyism and environmental constraints makes it even longer to build such major infrastructure.

The chances of HS2 being built between London to Birmingham is still no better than 50:50, to Crewe is probably the same while to Leeds and Manchester is probably no higher than 1 in 5. We may end up with Liverpool being the best served northern location!

By the way I'm an economist (but not a noted one) and as the old joke goes get 2 economists in a room and you will get 3 different opinions.

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

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

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

 

[B&I]

I agree, but logic and reasoning seem to go out of the window when discussing HS2 and/or Liverpool - you'd think that bringing Liverpool - London into something equivalent to Norwich/Southampton - London would be a positive thing - a half hourly service taking around ninety minutes seems pretty good to me - but Something Something Manchester Something

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

That's according to HS2'S own consultants. I'll take thier reasoned predictions over your baseless opinions any day.

Also, because ypu STILL don't seem to understand, no matter how often I repeat this, Liverpolitans are not concerned about receiving less investment than Manchester for the sake of it (they are after all pretty used to that). They are worried because it places their economy at risk of damage. This isnnot.something I'd expect someone who chweefully writes off the city he lives in as second tier to understand. Not all ofnus arenlooking forwaed to a future where all but a handful of our cities, regardless of size, are downgraded to dormitory status

 

[Tobbes]

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

That's according to HS2'S own consultants. I'll take thier reasoned predictions over your baseless opinions any day.

Also, because ypu STILL don't seem to understand, no matter how often I repeat this, Liverpolitans are not concerned about receiving less investment than Manchester for the sake of it (they are after all pretty used to that). They are worried because it places their economy at risk of damage. This isnnot.something I'd expect someone who chweefully writes off the city he lives in as second tier to understand. Not all ofnus arenlooking forwaed to a future where all but a handful of our cities, regardless of size, are downgraded to dormitory status

@B&I: please help me understand your argument. You're taking a single data point which is the worst case scenario from a single report in 2013, and using that as the entirity of the case to spend £2bn+? Would your view on the necessity of an HSR to Liverpool change if that one report had shown that the range of possible economic outcomes was +0.1% to +1.2%? Would your view change if the cost were £5bn?

It seems to me that rather than arguing for a solution based on a single data point taken out of context in a five year old report, "butressed" by some shabby misleading statistics and spin in the 20 Miles More FAQ, Liverpolitans would be better served by using the new service to better market their city and by very high usage numbers, make the case for a direct HSR link later on. Otherwise, it looks and sounds like a non-evidence based whinge-a-thon.

 

[B&I]

If you're talking about this table, @B&I (I can't find the report itself), then it shows that in some analysis from 2013 suggested that there are a range of outcomes from HS2 that range from -0.4% of Liverpool GDP to +1.2% of GDP. This seems like a perfectly reasonable impact range, and not all outcomes are equally likely - indeed, given a bell curve of probability the most likely outcome will be a low net positive (say +0.25% - +0.5%) for Liverpool.

So the question is why is there any risk of economic shrinkage? Who knows, but an educated guess is that if HS2 didn't stimulate Liverpool's economy *at all* and led to firms leaving to go up the road to Manchester becuase of the HS2 link, then it could - but is unlikely to - lead to economic shrinkage in Liverpool. But then it is (very) unlikely that there will be no positive effect from HS2 at all.

I'd politely suggest that hanging your hat on a single study from five years ago, and then only looking at the worst case scenario is a pretty weak basis for opposing something. But let's play this out. Even if this 2013 projection were correct, and the worst case scenario were delivered, Liverpool's loss would be more than offset by the NW regional gains from HS2 (Manchester's minimum gains alone wipe out Liverpool's worst case losses) making the decision to go with HS2 clearly a good idea.

The more nuanced question of whether it is worth building a dedicated HSR into Liverpool will depend on the BCR - but you'd need a very strong case to show that the loss of 8-13 minutes* by using a conventional 100/125 alignment for the 39 miles to HS2 (source: 20 miles more FAQ) is worth the cost of building an HSR alignment through Merseyside - what's your proposal for where the line should go? How much would it cost? What benefits would it actually deliver?

*Running time for 39 miles at 225 mph 10m 24s; at 125 mph 18m 43s; at 100 mph 23m 24s: of course, the time savings would actually be less than this because the train would be accellerating from zero and decellerating to stop at Liverpool, but let's ignore that.

Why are you still posting on this subject ? Having admitted that all relevant decisions were made on the basis of.political clout, that's all you needed to say.

Where's the other evidence to contradict the report ? How could the great HS2 possibly have put forward such mistaken evidence ?

As for reports showing the potential BCR and practical details of a high speed route to Liverpool, take a look at the 20 Miles More site. Though I have difficulty believing that finance really plays much role when Liverpool's own offer to fund a link was turned down by the DfT without explanation.

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 ?

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

 

[The Ham]

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

The reason that anyone does anything that is possibly harmful to then is because the rewards are generally more likely to be better.

For instance I could not drive a car because there's a risk that I could die in an accident. However the risk of that happening is very low, so I carry on driving.

The same is true here, the risk of Liverpool being harmed by HS2 is statistically low and so is probably worth doing.

What you have to bear in mind is that the report was asked to produce a sensitivity test. That generally means that you think of a fairly unlikely, but entirely plausible (so no alien invasions), event. In this case each and every business in Liverpool being sensitive to costs increases.

However in the real world there will be businesses that you can think of which where cost increases are unlikely to be a problem. Either due to things like people being willing to go and watch their team play regardless of cost through to companies who never need to travel for meetings (i.e. local cafés, hairdressers, etc.).

As such although there is statistically a risk it's not a real life risk.

However, the quoted number is no longer relevant as the proposal has changed (maybe because of the report, so the change may now ensure that nowhere being served by HS2 has a risk of being impacted negatively) which may have resulted in a different figure. Maybe you need to put in another FOI request to see if that is still the case.

Unless you know that Liverpool is still at risk of being negatively impacted then the minus £50 million is as worthless as last week's loosing lottery ticket - in that both had a chance of happening but history has changed that.

 

[Tobbes]

Why are you still posting on this subject ? Having admitted that all relevant decisions were made on the basis of.political clout, that's all you needed to say.

Except that's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that had Liverpool's politicians been in No 10, then they could have insisted that Liverpool have a full HSR route irrespective of the BCR. Fortunately (for public value for money) this hasn't happened, and Liverpool will get 2 tph service which offers a 96 min service to Euston versus at least 128 mins (and normally 132 - 134 mins) today, which is a massive improvement.

As for reports showing the potential BCR and practical details of a high speed route to Liverpool, take a look at the 20 Miles More site. Though I have difficulty believing that finance really plays much role when Liverpool's own offer to fund a link was turned down by the DfT without explanation.

I have - is this the report that you mean? If so, it's from 2014, and quite a lot has happened since then....

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 ?

Not sure what you're refering to, here, @B&I?

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

Spare me.... but then I'm not the one relying on a single, worst-case data point from a report in 2013 to make my case.

 

[B&I]

A number plucked out of the air, by any chance?

No, a very crude.estimate of the cost of buying some new DMUs to enable trains of proper length to serve Manchester and Leeds.

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

I must have missed the key role played by Henley and Godalming in the Industrial Revolution. If London doesn't want to subsidise everything, perhaps the politicians and civil servants almost completely concentrated there could re-design the British state and economy to avoid concentrating virtually all resources and investment in one place.

When London is the single biggest beneficiary from HS2, are you aeriously arguing that it will make any impact on uneven economic development across Britain ?

No idea, I don't live there. Why do you think this is the case?

I don't think it is the case that there are other significant factors, apart from differnetial.levela of investment on infrastructure and other matters, which make Liverpool less attractive to investment than other competing cities. You were the one suggesting that such factors exist. If you are now saying you don't know what those factors are, why did you bring them up ?

I think the above are all pretty objective, tbh. What I'm saying is that a more effective political operation in Liverpool may have been able to swing a full HSR to Lime Street irrespective of the BCR based on political reasons - it wouldn't be the first time, after all. Instead, the situation looks like this distortion hasn't occurred and as a result a Classic Compatible 2 tph seems like a perfectly sensible compromise. IF there's more demand than 1600 seats per hour then investment (with NPR/HS3 whatever we call it now) will need be revisited.

It's hard to see how 2 tph with at least a 32 min saving over existing schedules to London will hurt Liverpool. I'm not arguing that benefit of the HSRs are shared equally by all points on the network (the biggest city usually benefits most), but both ends will benefit.

So, if by your own admission decisions are.made on the basis of politics rather than any objective factors, why has HS2 been any different ?

 

[B&I]

Oh, @B&I, the 20 Miles More FAQ is a pretty poor document - it doesn't, for instance, explain where these 20 miles will go, and how this will save 24 minutes (72 mins versus 96 mins) -- perhaps you can enlighten us, as the document certainly does not. (The more likely reduction is the 8-13 mins I suggest above).

It is particularly egregious to claim that the journey time on HS2 to Liverpool will be 103 mins by averaging the Staffords (110 mins) with the non-Staffords (96 mins); the reality is that time-sensitive travellers will select the faster service. And do we have any confidence in their c.£2bn costing? Have they done any detailed design work to support them? It's not obvious - the absence of a map is pretty telling...

All this FAQ suggests to me is that we should quadruple Weaverham and Winsford.

Why are you still posting on this thread ? It's all.politics. You've said so yourself, several times.

We have discovered this morning that you can't be bothered.looking up National Rail Enquiries to find out how long trains take to get from Crewe, it comes as little surprise that you can't be bothered.reading the actual 20 Miles More report either.

If you are correct, and the slower proposed HS2 service to Liverpool should be ignoring in assessing connectivity, that means Liverpool gets 1 TPH out of HS2 i.e. a service which is no more frequent than it is currently, and has less seats. Your reasons for ignoring the slower train are that time swnsitive customers will take the faster one. But you have been arguing that we should ignore a report suggesring Liverpool will suffer economically if vusiness investment decisions are sensitive to factors like journey times. Isn't your positiom a wee bit inconsistent ?

Thank you for your concession that there should be 4 tracks from Weaverham to Winsford. You will of course be aware that HS2 dowa not provide these, despite this.being onw of the most acutely crowded stretches.of the WCML. Bot that I suspect someone who meadures journey times on the assumption that trains travel at 100 mph plus from.station to station will know this, but how much would the 4 tracking you peopose cost, compared to a line from the HS2 trunk into Liverpool ? And what would their relative benefits be, bearing in mind a high soeed.line into Liverpool could (unlike.a 4 tracked WCML as you propose) be used by 'NPR' trains as well as HS2 one ?

 

[Tobbes]

No, a very crude.estimate of the cost of buying some new DMUs to enable trains of proper length to serve Manchester and Leeds.

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

I must have missed the key role played by Henley and Godalming in the Industrial Revolution. If London doesn't want to subsidise everything, perhaps the politicians and civil servants almost completely concentrated there could re-design the British state and economy to avoid concentrating virtually all resources and investment in one place.

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

When London is the single biggest beneficiary from HS2, are you aeriously arguing that it will make any impact on uneven economic development across Britain ?

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

I don't think it is the case that there are other significant factors, apart from differnetial.levela of investment on infrastructure and other matters, which make Liverpool less attractive to investment than other competing cities. You were the one suggesting that such factors exist. If you are now saying you don't know what those factors are, why did you bring them up ?

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

So, if by your own admission decisions are.made on the basis of politics rather than any objective factors, why has HS2 been any different ?

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

 

[B&I]

The reason that anyone does anything that is possibly harmful to then is because the rewards are generally more likely to be better.

For instance I could not drive a car because there's a risk that I could die in an accident. However the risk of that happening is very low, so I carry on driving.

The same is true here, the risk of Liverpool being harmed by HS2 is statistically low and so is probably worth doing.

What you have to bear in mind is that the report was asked to produce a sensitivity test. That generally means that you think of a fairly unlikely, but entirely plausible (so no alien invasions), event. In this case each and every business in Liverpool being sensitive to costs increases.

However in the real world there will be businesses that you can think of which where cost increases are unlikely to be a problem. Either due to things like people being willing to go and watch their team play regardless of cost through to companies who never need to travel for meetings (i.e. local cafés, hairdressers, etc.).

As such although there is statistically a risk it's not a real life risk.

However, the quoted number is no longer relevant as the proposal has changed (maybe because of the report, so the change may now ensure that nowhere being served by HS2 has a risk of being impacted negatively) which may have resulted in a different figure. Maybe you need to put in another FOI request to see if that is still the case.

Unless you know that Liverpool is still at risk of being negatively impacted then the minus £50 million is as worthless as last week's loosing lottery ticket - in that both had a chance of happening but history has changed that.

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

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

 

[Darandio]

No, a very crude.estimate of the cost of buying some new DMUs to enable trains of proper length to serve Manchester and Leeds.

So a number plucked out of the air then?

 

[The Ham]

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

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

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

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

 

[Tobbes]

Why are you still posting on this thread ? It's all.politics. You've said so yourself, several times.

And you've misrepresented what I've said several times - please see my last reply.

We have discovered this morning that you can't be bothered.looking up National Rail Enquiries to find out how long trains take to get from Crewe, it comes as little surprise that you can't be bothered.reading the actual 20 Miles More report either.

I've now read this 2014 report, and it is disengenuous about journey times by averaging the fast trains and the via Stafford trains - what will actually happen is that if 2 tph on this basis is what is provided, someone living or working next to Lime Street will simply schedule themselves around the fast trains if that's their principal driver. Alternatively, if you're in your (completely misleading for these purposes) ESPON definition of Liverpool and happen to actually be in Warrington and want to go to London, then you're more likely to get the train to Crewe (c. 18 mins) and get an HS2 service from there as opposed to going into Lime Street and doubling back.

If you are correct, and the slower proposed HS2 service to Liverpool should be ignoring in assessing connectivity, that means Liverpool gets 1 TPH out of HS2 ie a servuce which ia no.more frequent than it is currently, and has less seats. Your reasons for ignoring the slower train are that time swnsitive customers will take the faster one. But you have been arguing that we should ignore a report suggesring Liverpool will suffer economically if vusiness investment decisions are sensitive to factors like journey times. Isn't your positiom a wee but inconsistent ?

No, not at all, as the slower 1 tph will still be about 20 mins quicker than today's journey times, and if the demand exists, then service levels will respond. And in any event, you continue to treat a single, worst-case scenario data point from a 2013 study as the only possible outcome of HS2 Phase 2, which is frankly ridiculous.

 

[B&I]

I have - is this the report that you mean? If so, it's from 2014, and quite a lot has happened since then....

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

Not sure what you're refering to, here, @B&I?

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

Spare me.... but then I'm not the one relying on a single, worst-case data point from a report in 2013 to make my case.

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

 

[deltic]

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

That's according to HS2'S own consultants. I'll take thier reasoned predictions over your baseless opinions any day.

Also, because ypu STILL don't seem to understand, no matter how often I repeat this, Liverpolitans are not concerned about receiving less investment than Manchester for the sake of it (they are after all pretty used to that). They are worried because it places their economy at risk of damage. This isnnot.something I'd expect someone who chweefully writes off the city he lives in as second tier to understand. Not all ofnus arenlooking forwaed to a future where all but a handful of our cities, regardless of size, are downgraded to dormitory status

I thought the answer was straightforward, in that when the KPMG report was done Liverpool was not going to be served by HS2. But on checking back to the 2013 service assumptions I see that was not the case. I would put it down to a dodgy model that was widely criticised at the time as the overall numbers it produced were unbelievably large