HS2 and Liverpool

[PR1Berske]

Spun off from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/we-need-high-speed-rail-but-is-hs2-really-needed.168600/


With a wave to @B&I and @The Ham


The discussion has centered around what happens to Liverpool and the wider Liverpool City Region after HS2, whether there are economic consequences of HS2 not connecting with Liverpool, and how HS2 serves the NW's major cities.

 

[Camden]

On the topic of "spinning off", please can the junk topic of HS(2 or other) be moved to the sub-area that most people can easily avoid.

Thanks.

 

[deltic]

Present assumption is that Liverpool will be served by 2tph on HS2 saving about 30 minutes on present journey times.

For the present full set of working assumptions of rail services post HS2 see https://assets.publishing.service.g...699029/CS866_D_Assumptions_Report_PFM_7.1.pdf

 

[Polarbear]

Although not directly related to whether Liverpool will in fact get a direct link to HS2, it's notable that Channel 4 recently ruled out a move to Liverpool, with poor transport links being cited as on of the reasons.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I don't think Liverpool was ever considered for HS2 in any of the phases. For some reason government's don't see it as an important city anymore, and at times I wonder if we've lost our importance as a major maritime port city. It's hard to see why it would have been missed out in initial phases though unless there just wasn't the room for it.

 

[The Ham]

The main debate revolves around the -£50 million to +£115 million figures obtained under a FOI request. This only relates to the city of Liverpool and not the city region as that benefits by enough that under either end of the range the two (city and city region) will combined be better off.

The lower figure is associated with all businesses being cost sensitive whilst the upper is associated with no businesses being sensitive to costs.

Given that neither of these extremes is likely to be true the risk of there beinga -£50 million impact to he economy is fairly unlikely.

I would argue that to move from the extreme ends of this range that it is likely the numbers of businesses being sensitive/not sensitive to costs would probably follow a standard bell curve pattern (very few business needed to move away from the extreme ends whilst a lot to move away from the mid point). This would result in the most probable result being near the midpoint of the range which is circa +£32.5 million. Even to get to zero would require a lot of businesses to be sensitive to costs.

To give you an idea of how many, even on straight line 70% would need to be sensitive to costs for it to result in a £0 impact.

As such the actual risk of anything below £0 would probably be very low. However over the city region any loss would be offset by growth there.

Therefore any job losses would mostly result in job relocations to another party of the city region.

Do I think that there should be a HS line to Liverpool, yes.

Do I think that building such a line from day one would result in more or less support for HS2? I would suggest less, due to the extra costs, which then reduces the likelihood of Liverpool getting anything.

Therefore is Liverpool more or less likely to get a HS line of it was part of HS2 from day one? Probably it would be a coin toss.

 

[deltic]

The report that the -£50 million to +£115 million figures come from is 5 years old and based on a different scheme than the one now being considered - ie AFAIK it did not assume direct HS2 services to Liverpool which are now included. While not quite back of the fag packet the model used is simplistic. It is also looking at future growth not the present position - so it is saying growth may be more or less than predicted at the time but there will not be any absolute decline in the economy.

 

[6Gman]

One of my criticisms of HS2 from the outset has been that when you hand a particular advantage to one city it will disadvantage competitor cities. Where the advantaged city is currently disadvantaged this will even things out and could be viewed as levelling a playing field. However when the city gaining the advantage is already advantaged ...

The major gainers from HS2 (Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham) are already prospering. The likes of Liverpool, Hull, Bradford, Wolverhampton are likely - in comparative terms - to gain a lesser advantage.

However, there remains the possibility that in absolute terms they may still benefit.

 

[route:oxford]

On the topic of "spinning off", please can the junk topic of HS(2 or other) be moved to the sub-area that most people can easily avoid.

Thanks.

Wasn't there a sub-forum in the olden days?

 

[snowball]

Wasn't there a sub-forum in the olden days?

It existed until very recently. The thread from which this one was spun off, was originally in it.

 

[B&I]

The fact that Liverpool cannot be discussed in the context of HS2 without posters demanding that it be 'spun off' tells you all you need to know about the attitude of certain posters to a) HS2 b) Liverpool.

Still, I suppose at least threads about Liverpool are no longer automatically locked ince the usual suspects have contributed their oh-so-reasoned opinions about why the city doesn't deserve any improvement in rail service, and indeed should be grateful that it has any rail service, or that it is not used by the RN submarine fleet for target practice or something.

I exaggerate, but only slightly

 

[Senex]

Of course Liverpool deserves a much better service than it gets. It is one of the great cities, and it seems finally to be getting on its feet again after a long period in the doldrums. But I get very bored with the argument that Manchester should be penalised to give Liverpool more. Manchester gets the level of service it does presumably because these services are commercially viable—and also because it's on through routes, whereas Liverpool is a dead end like Hull. Let Liverpool argue the case for better services (including faster services to and from Manchester!), but please let's not always have that argument in terms of "Manchester's got it" or "Take one from Manchester".

 

[Tobbes]

I thought that the whole point of procuring Classic Compatible sets was that they would obviate the need to build full HSR everywhere in the first stage - just like the TGV nertwork did (brilliantly) in France. Ignoring the question of where a Liverpool HSR route and station would go, Warrington BQ to Lime Street is <20 miles, so from the HS2 alignment it is a maximum of 30 miles. Even allowing for a 100mph speed differential, the time difference is all of 9 minutes. Unless capacity to/from Liverpool is a major problem with 100/125 mph paths unavailable to deal with the demand, then the case for an optimised 400 km/h HSR route from Liverpool to London (ie, joining HS2 at the point best for journey times to/from Liverpool/London seems very weak to me.

 

[6Gman]

The fact that Liverpool cannot be discussed in the context of HS2 without posters demanding that it be 'spun off' tells you all you need to know about the attitude of certain posters to a) HS2 b) Liverpool.

Still, I suppose at least threads about Liverpool are no longer automatically locked ince the usual suspects have contributed their oh-so-reasoned opinions about why the city doesn't deserve any improvement in rail service, and indeed should be grateful that it has any rail service, or that it is not used by the RN submarine fleet for target practice or something.

I exaggerate, but only slightly

I'm not sure reasoned debate is helped if posters grossly exaggerate views with which they disagree.

 

[B&I]

Of course Liverpool deserves a much better service than it gets. It is one of the great cities, and it seems finally to be getting on its feet again after a long period in the doldrums. But I get very bored with the argument that Manchester should be penalised to give Liverpool more. Manchester gets the level of service it does presumably because these services are commercially viable—and also because it's on through routes, whereas Liverpool is a dead end like Hull. Let Liverpool argue the case for better services (including faster services to and from Manchester!), but please let's not always have that argument in terms of "Manchester's got it" or "Take one from Manchester".

Where to even start ?

Manchester does not need to lose out to provide Liverpool with a better service. Nowhere does. We are asking for an add-on to HS2, not a diversion away from Manchester or anything else. This is one of the thing that is so frustrating about this debate.

Manchester is not on a through route in HS2 terms. The high speed line to Piccadilly is as much of a dead end as Lime Street and Paragon are. Because HS2 is being designed this way, Manchester will require a double deck high speed station and a U-shaped tunnel under the city centre, when and if 'NPR' is ever built

 

[B&I]

I'm not sure reasoned debate is helped if posters grossly exaggerate views with which they disagree.

It certainly makes it more interesting than the usual shape this debate takes - different people make the same point over and over and over and over and over and over again, and they never get any more convincing. Can you point to a single other place in Britain which is the subject of so.much time and energy expended by posters on here arguing agaibst any improvement to its rail services ?

 

[B&I]

I thought that the whole point of procuring Classic Compatible sets was that they would obviate the need to build full HSR everywhere in the first stage - just like the TGV nertwork did (brilliantly) in France. Ignoring the question of where a Liverpool HSR route and station would go, Warrington BQ to Lime Street is <20 miles, so from the HS2 alignment it is a maximum of 30 miles. Even allowing for a 100mph speed differential, the time difference is all of 9 minutes. Unless capacity to/from Liverpool is a major problem with 100/125 mph paths unavailable to deal with the demand, then the case for an optimised 400 km/h HSR route from Liverpool to London (ie, joining HS2 at the point best for journey times to/from Liverpool/London seems very weak to me.

How do you figure that the HS2 trunk runs 10 miles east of Warrington ? It is approximately 20 miles from the centre of Liverpool to the main HS2 trunk, hence the name of the campaign group '20 Miles More'. Given that classic compatibles are going to travel more slowly than the c 40 minutes taken today between Lime Street and Crewe, I think the time difference is rather greater than you suggest.

Btw why do the other cities with dedicated high speed links all the way to their doorsteps require them then ? Where is the strong case against running the last 40 miles into each of them on conventional track ?

 

[MarkyT]

I thought that the whole point of procuring Classic Compatible sets was that they would obviate the need to build full HSR everywhere in the first stage - just like the TGV nertwork did (brilliantly) in France. Ignoring the question of where a Liverpool HSR route and station would go, Warrington BQ to Lime Street is <20 miles, so from the HS2 alignment it is a maximum of 30 miles. Even allowing for a 100mph speed differential, the time difference is all of 9 minutes. Unless capacity to/from Liverpool is a major problem with 100/125 mph paths unavailable to deal with the demand, then the case for an optimised 400 km/h HSR route from Liverpool to London (ie, joining HS2 at the point best for journey times to/from Liverpool/London seems very weak to me.

A very sensible contribution. I'm struggling to see how it is possible to justify a entirely new full speed dedicated double track line through a difficult urban area for just two trains an hour. I'm not saying that a high speed pair into Liverpool isn't justified, but it might at least partially follow an existing alignment for the last few miles and might be shared with traffic of similar performance and stopping pattern such as future NPR services and other LDHS trains. An important consideration is to try and ensure complete separation as far as is humanly possible from troublesome freight traffic and local stopping services, but you don't need entirely new construction to achieve that necessarily. Remember too that The Manchester tunnel arm is not planned to be full HS2 trunk speed, so the journey time comparisons are not with 400kph running all the way and it is possible that NPR trains may share the Manchester approach too. Sheffield appears very happy to have its planned HS2 services diverted over conventional network segments to reach its established city centre station, so I don't understand why Liverpool feels its getting such a short straw. I do think inter-running with west coast freight and local traffic via Crewe - Weaver is a risky option performancewise however, especially long term, but a new shared approach with NPR from teh junctions around Manchester Airport eventually built broadly following the old freight corridor through Warrington, then exclusively using a pair of the existing four track alignment from Widnes into Lime Street would be a sensible, affordable compromise. Clearly it may be necessary to move some of the local traffic out of Lime Street to accommodate it, but luckily there's a potential solution for that which also gives some considerable benefits in its own right.

 

[MarkyT]

Given that classic compatibles are going to travel more slowly than the c 40 minutes taken today between Lime Street and Crewe, I think the time difference is rather greater than you suggest.

This is not neccesarily true on this section. Parts of the route are very straight so should support existing highest speeds without tilt. The new trains will have much more installed power so should be able to accelerate out of any localised restrictions more quickly. I'd like to see some detailed performance simulations before making any informed comment on this.

Btw why do the other cities with dedicated high speed links all the way to their doorsteps require them then ? Where is the strong case against running the last 40 miles into each of them on conventional track ?

A number of towns and cities are likely to have HS2 service extended to them via the conventional network. A list might include: Stafford, Stoke-on Trent, Macclesfield; Warrington, Wigan, Lancaster, Preston, Carlisle, Glasgow, Edinburgh; York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle; Chesterfield, Sheffield. Are you suggesting new infrastructure to all of these? Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds have been chosen because of their planned service density and the business expected, and because they are enormous hubs for their respective regions.

 

[B&I]

A very sensible contribution. I'm struggling to see how it is possible to justify a entirely new full speed dedicated double track line through a difficult urban area for just two trains an hour. I'm not saying that a high speed pair into Liverpool isn't justified, but it might at least partially follow an existing alignment for the last few miles and might be shared with traffic of similar performance and stopping pattern such as future NPR services and other LDHS trains. An important consideration is to try and ensure complete separation as far as is humanly possible from troublesome freight traffic and local stopping services, but you don't need entirely new construction to achieve that necessarily. Remember too that The Manchester tunnel arm is not planned to be full HS2 trunk speed, so the journey time comparisons are not with 400kph running all the way and it is possible that NPR trains may share the Manchester approach too. Sheffield appears very happy to have its planned HS2 services diverted over conventional network segments to reach its established city centre station, so I don't understand why Liverpool feels its getting such a short straw. I do think inter-running with west coast freight and local traffic via Crewe - Weaver is a risky option performancewise however, especially long term, but a new shared approach with NPR from teh junctions around Manchester Airport eventually built broadly following the old freight corridor through Warrington, then exclusively using a pair of the existing four track alignment from Widnes into Lime Street would be a sensible, affordable compromise. Clearly it may be necessary to move some of the local traffic out of Lime Street to accommodate it, but luckily there's a potential solution for that which also gives some considerable benefits in its own right.

First of all, I don't think anyone expects, or even particularly wants, separate HS2 and 'NPR' tracks into Liverpool. If there was any substance to 'NPR' at all, and it wasn't a steaming pile of horse manure invented by Gideon Osborne in an attempt to win votes from gullible northerners (an enedeavour in which he was, happily, startlingly unsuccessful), the opportunity of using the same high speed tracks for HS2 and 'NPR' would be a major factor in favour of Liverpool being properly served with HS2.

So, no-one is calling for a high speed line for 2 trains an hour.

Why is Leeds getting a high speed line the whole way to its doorstep for 2 trains per hour ? What's so magic about 3 TPH to Manchester and Birmingham that they high speed all the way ? After all, 3 TPH can reach those cities today.

Now you call for a high speed line as far as somewhere close to the edge of Liverpool, albeit resuscitsting a bendy old freight line is an interesting new definition of high speed. You suggest room can be made for high speed trains at Lime Street by removing local services. How ? You've made ir substantially harder for many of them to reach Lime Street by stuffing HS2 onto the existing approach lines.

Why isn't Liverpool, the second worst connected large British city by rail, allowed any increased rail capacity, when it is apparently so vital to provide it everywhere else ?

 

[B&I]

This is not neccesarily true on this section. Parts of the route are very straight so should support existing highest speeds without tilt. The new trains will have much more installed power so should be able to accelerate out of any localised restrictions more quickly. I'd like to see some detailed performance simulations before making any informed comment on this.

A number of towns and cities are likely to have HS2 service extended to them via the conventional network. A list might include: Stafford, Stoke-on Trent, Macclesfield; Warrington, Wigan, Lancaster, Preston, Carlisle, Glasgow, Edinburgh; York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle; Chesterfield, Sheffield. Are you suggesting new infrastructure to all of these? Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds have been chosen because of their planned service density and the business expected, and because they are enormous hubs for their respective regions.

No, in this particular case I am suggesting a thought exercise, difficult as it may be for some on here for whom thought becomes a difficult exercise when asked to critically appraise their beloved HS2.

I know the official justification for building high speed lines the whole way to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds (though I do not believe their passenger numbers and importance as rail hubs is so much greater than Liverpool's to justify the radically different levels of infrastructure being provided, particularly when demand levels have for long periods been distorted by dufferent service levels, despute which Liverpool generates nearly as much traffic to London as Leeds does today, with half the service). As I have already commented, I cannot see how Leeds justifies a full-length high speed line with the same number of HS2 services per hour as Liverpool, or how 1 additional train per hour to Manchester and Brum justify the difference in provision when there is space on existing tracks for that number of services to reach both cities (the reason given by some on here for not building a high speed line the whole way to Liverpool).

So, if Liverpool isn't getting a high speed line the whole way because the planned number of HS2 services per hour can reach it on existing tracks, why are other places in the same situation being treated so differently ? (Before you say it, I will see your Slade Lane and Stockport junctions, and raise you Winsford-Acton Bridge)

 

[B&I]

Although not directly related to whether Liverpool will in fact get a direct link to HS2, it's notable that Channel 4 recently ruled out a move to Liverpool, with poor transport links being cited as on of the reasons.

Sssssh!!!!! Issues like this emphatically don't matter because they only affect actual people's lives and prospects.

Hence, when I was pointed out that Liverpool is the only core city with an HS2 service which is at risk of reduced GVA post-HS2, according to a report prepared by KPMG on behalf (and suppressed until FoI requests were made), the following reactions were given:
1. I was making this up (I wasn't)
2. That report must be wrong (with no explanation why it was)
3. That report has been discredited (although no-one has any evidence to contradict it)
4. That report has been superseded by changes in circumstances (I think by this it was meant that both of Liverpool's HS2 services to London will be only 30 minutes slower per journey leg to London than its closest economic competitor, rather than one taking 50 minutes longer per leg)
5. The report said it is possible Liverpool's economy will grow post-HS2 (as if that somehow makes up for it being the only city served by HS2 at risk of economic shrinkage)
6. It is unlikely that Liverpool's economy will shrink post-HS2, because that is the opinion of certain posters (none noted economists)
7. It is unlikely that the economy of Liverpool will shrink post-HS2 because the assumption on which economic shrinkage predicted was that rail connectivity would be a major factor in business investment decisions (but the importance of connectivity to business is perhaps the major justification for HS2 from the point of view of its economic effects)
8. The loss to Liverpool itself doesn't matter because the city region as a whole is predicted to benefit economically and people can go elsewhere to look for jobs (the Norman Tebbitt argument)
9. The loss to Liverpool doesn't matter as long as the country as a whole benefits (the really Norman Tebbitt argument)
10. Liverpool will benefit from HS2 to the same extent as everywhere else because a high speed line will be built to it as part of 'NPR' (ignoring the fact that 'NPR' is currently the railway equivalent of a twinkle in the milkman's eye, with no definitive plan, no funding, no enabling legislation and, let's face it, no prospect if happening without at least a change of government and, probably, the sudden resignation of most of the senior staff of the DfT and Treasury).

What tickles me is that other posters seem genuinely upset and confused when I ask why they think any Liverpolitan would be persuaded by any of this to accept HS2 in its current form.

 

[6Gman]

It certainly makes it more interesting than the usual shape this debate takes - different people make the same point over and over and over and over and over and over again, and they never get any more convincing. Can you point to a single other place in Britain which is the subject of so.much time and energy expended by posters on here arguing agaibst any improvement to its rail services ?

No, because I haven't noticed "posters on here arguing against any improvement to its rail services". Can you point to any such posts?

And what exactly does Liverpool want from HS2?

(Personally I'd like a direct link from HS2 running into a new station at Exchange/Moorfields, but that raises a whole host of other issues. But it would offer the prospect of a very good Liverpool - Birmingham service.)

 

[B&I]

No, because I haven't noticed "posters on here arguing against any improvement to its rail services". Can you point to any such posts?

And what exactly does Liverpool want from HS2?

(Personally I'd like a direct link from HS2 running into a new station at Exchange/Moorfields, but that raises a whole host of other issues. But it would offer the prospect of a very good Liverpool - Birmingham service.)

At Easter, there was a thread, spun off from one (IIRC) about future WCML services, about improving services to Liverpool. A number of people.argued that Liverpool already received adequate services, and that anyone saying otherwise was whinging. Within 2 days the thread was locked because the arguments had all been 'done before'.

During the summer, in a thread relating to TPE, it was argued that it was entirely reasonable of TPE not to serve Liverpool for 2 months in order to save the bother of installing a mobile welfare facility at Huyton station.

Whenever any issue arises of congestion and unreliability around Manchester, a number of posters can relied upon to suggest that this should be relieved by terminating Liverpool-bound EMT and / or TPE services should be curtailed at Manchester to relieve it.

Suggestions that Liverpool doesn't need 2 TPH to Birmingham, and 1 should be diverted somewhere else, are made frequently.

The other day, in a thread about new Liverpool-Scotland services, one poster who.clearly hadn't.a clue what he was talking about asked what demand there was from Liverpool-Glasgow, while someone else wondered why TPE weren't using the extension of Liverpool-Newcastle services to Edinburgh as an opportunity to divert its western terminus from Liverpool to Manchester Airport, rather overlooking the alternative service from Manchester Airport to Edinburgh, and for that matter to Newcastle.

This thread, and the one from which it has been spun, are chock full.of people arguing against improved services to Liverpool ! If there was a high speed line to Liverpool, that would permit an improved service. The vast majority of people on this thread are arguing against that

 

[Tobbes]

Why isn't Liverpool, the second worst connected large British city by rail, allowed any increased rail capacity, when it is apparently so vital to provide it everywhere else ?

Well, @B&I, the first answer should be because Liverpool isn't suffering from overcrowding unlike London, Manchester and Leeds: https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/633285/rail-passenger-crowding-2016.pdf

Secondly, Greater Manchester and Greater Leeds are much larger agolmerations than Liverpool/Merseyside, and 2 tph from Liverpool-London with a minimum 32+ minute saving in existing journey times (96 mins versus 128mins, though NRE seems to be suggesting existing journey times of 132 to 134 minutes as more likely, so the saving is greater) should be transformational in terms of making Liverpool a more attractive place to invest . Or it would do if the only investment constraint was journey time to London - and that's not something that HS2 will directly solve. Nonetheless, HS2 makes commuting from Liverpool to London easier in 2033 than commuting from Norwich to London today - and in effect on a par with Norwich in 2033 when the two "Norwich in 90" specials are ignored.

Third, Liverpool packs less political punch than Greater Manchester or Leeds City Region. 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.

So it comes back to the very fair question that @6Gman posed: what *does* Liverpool want from HS2?

 

[krus_aragon]

(Personally I'd like a direct link from HS2 running into a new station at Exchange/Moorfields, but that raises a whole host of other issues. But it would offer the prospect of a very good Liverpool - Birmingham service.)

Interesting. What alignment would you have in mind for such a link to Exchange: tunnelling under the city (dodging Moorfields and the rest of Merseyrail) or looping around the top and coming in from the north?

 

[B&I]

Well, @B&I, the first answer should be because Liverpool isn't suffering from overcrowding unlike London, Manchester and Leeds: https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/633285/rail-passenger-crowding-2016.pdf

Secondly, Greater Manchester and Greater Leeds are much larger agolmerations than Liverpool/Merseyside, and 2 tph from Liverpool-London with a minimum 32+ minute saving in existing journey times (96 mins versus 128mins, though NRE seems to be suggesting existing journey times of 132 to 134 minutes as more likely, so the saving is greater) should be transformational in terms of making Liverpool a more attractive place to invest . Or it would do if the only investment constraint was journey time to London - and that's not something that HS2 will directly solve. Nonetheless, HS2 makes commuting from Liverpool to London easier in 2033 than commuting from Norwich to London today - and in effect on a par with Norwich in 2033 when the two "Norwich in 90" specials are ignored.

Third, Liverpool packs less political punch than Greater Manchester or Leeds City Region. 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.

So it comes back to the very fair question that @6Gman posed: what *does* Liverpool want from HS2?

Firstly, if Liverpool suffers less train crowding than Manchester or Leeds, that may be because it has a proper suburban railway system, rather than a tramway made out of Technic Lego supplemented by the odd joke of a suburban service like Manchester, or the worst public transport of any city of its size in Europe, like Leeds. Both cities' overcrowding problems could if course be solved, for something like £49.95 billion less than HS2, by buying Northern and TPE sufficient rollong stock. Perhaps we should be investing in better public transport inside regional cities rather than worrying about getting people to London ever faster, though while our economy depends on pouring all resources and investment into a single place provincal cities unfortunately have to play the game or starve.

Btw I have some difficulty accpeting a survey which claims 0% of trains in Liverpool are overcrowded. I must have been imagining the fact that every time I have had to stand, every time I have travelled from Broad Green to Lime Street in the morning peak.

Secondly, much bigger ? Really ?

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

Also, what are the other constraints to investment in Liverpool which HS2 won't solve, and why do those afflict Liverpool more than other cities, either on HS2 or otherwise ?

Thirdly, we may now be getting to the heart of the matter. Liverpool has been run for decades by utter clowns, a position which may only now be starting to change. The only problem is that, by making this comment, you call into question all the so-called objective justifications for the way HS2 is being applied to Liverpool, compared to the way it is being applied to other cities.

I can't tell you what everyone in Liverpool wants, but I'd be happy with a sufficiently good rail service that HS2's consultants weren't predicting a risk that the city's economy will shrink as a result of HS2. I think I've made that pretty plain a number of times. I suspect, though, when you ask what Liverpool wants, your question really is 'who do these people think they are ?'

 

[Ianno87]

Btw I have some difficulty accpeting a survey which claims 0% of trains in Liverpool are overcrowded. I must have been imagining the fact that every time I have had to stand, every time I have travelled from Broad Green to Lime Street in the morning peak.

Standing up for c.10 minutes does not equate to being overcrowded.

 

[The Ham]

5. The report said it is possible Liverpool's economy will grow post-HS2 (as if that somehow makes up for it being the only city served by HS2 at risk of economic shrinkage)

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.

6. It is unlikely that Liverpool's economy will shrink post-HS2, because that is the opinion of certain posters (none noted economists)

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.

8. The loss to Liverpool itself doesn't matter because the city region as a whole is predicted to benefit economically and people can go elsewhere to look for jobs (the Norman Tebbitt argument)

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).

 

[Tobbes]

I suspect, though, when you ask what Liverpool wants, your question really is 'who do these people think they are ?'

Let's start with this, @B&I - no, that's not what I think at all, but it does reveal the size of the chip on your shoulder.

Firstly, if Liverpool suffers less train crowding than Manchester or Leeds, that may be because it has a proper suburban railway system, rather than a tramway made out of Technic Lego supplemented by the odd joke of a suburban service like Manchester, or the worst public transport of any city of its size in Europe, like Leeds.

<SNIP>

Btw I have some difficulty accpeting a survey which claims 0% of trains in Liverpool are overcrowded. I must have been imagining the fact that every time I have had to stand, every time I have travelled from Broad Green to Lime Street in the morning peak.

The proportion standing / PIXC calculations are standard measurements, and are equally applied to all cities, even London. So if you want to argue that the data is all wrong, fine, but you'll need to set out what metrics should be used. I'd also observe that the cost of building enough capcity so that every passenger in the middle of the high peak hour always has a seat is going to be so extoritionate that there's no way it would ever be possible - and if you think I'm wrong, try getting on a train from say Wandsworth Town to Waterloo in the high peak - and it's 4m 60ch rather than the 3m 47 ch of the journey you're describing, and look at the amount of additional capacity you'd need.

Both cities' overcrowding problems could if course be solved, for something like £49.95 billion less than HS2, by buying Northern and TPE sufficient rollong stock.

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

Perhaps we should be investing in better public transport inside regional cities rather than worrying about getting people to London ever faster, though while our economy depends on pouring all resources and investment into a single place provincal cities unfortunately have to play the game or starve.

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.

Secondly, much bigger ? Really ?

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

Well, if you include Warrington and Chester in your definition, then the numbers begin to even up. But even with these outliers in, it's still smaller than either Manchester or Leeds-Bradford, and how does an HSR to Lime Street benefit Chester? If I want to go from Warrington to London will it be quicker to go to Lime Street (37 mins) and then back out on an HSR or go to Crewe (18 mins)? In terms of density, Greater Manchester and Leeds/Bradford are clearly bigger markets than Liverpool.

Also, what are the other constraints to investment in Liverpool which HS2 won't solve, and why do those afflict Liverpool more than other cities, either on HS2 or otherwise ?

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

Thirdly, we may now be getting to the heart of the matter. Liverpool has been run for decades by utter clowns, a position which may only now be starting to change. The only problem is that, by making this comment, you call into question all the so-called objective justifications for the way HS2 is being applied to Liverpool, compared to the way it is being applied to other cities.

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.

I can't tell you what everyone in Liverpool wants, but I'd be happy with a sufficiently good rail service that HS2's consultants weren't predicting a risk that the city's economy will shrink as a result of HS2. I think I've made that pretty plain a number of times.

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.