HS2 and Liverpool

[B&I]

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


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

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

I know what a stress test is. The reason for having them is exploring worst case scenarios. The worst case scenario identified by KPMG suggests that Liverpool, but not other core cities served by HS2, will lose out economically. The best case scenario suggests it will do less well than all those other core cities. Not a great sales pitch.

I think you've made your point that you do not accept the relevance of the KPMG report, and I have explained why it concerns me , in exhaustive.detail.

 

[B&I]

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

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

We need longer trains too, but that could be done almost overnight at relatively low cost, using something more sensible than the 5 car combos TPE has in mind (the DfT remaining wedded to the notion that the bare.minimum is always the best us whippet-botherers can expect).

But anyone who travels the M62 of a morning (or danders past it on the way to Broad Green, like yours truly) could tell you how much untapped demand there is for rail travel up north. And while I agree with you that there is no neednto have high speed lines for the sake of it, or to assuage some form of transnational penis envy towards the French or the Chinese, something will need done about the geriatric timings between northern cities to make rail a universally attractive alternative to road. When you have main lines where speeds are below 60 mph on average, it is hard to see what is likely to be possible to bring them up to anything like the speeds considered acceptable on main lines serving London.

It has to be remembered that the north effectively has (or should have) a network of long inter city lines, beginning at Liverpool, branching at Manchester to Sheffield and the East Midlands, again at Leeds for Hull, and continuing on to Newcastle. While times for some city to city journeys aren't too bad, the overall journey times over those lines need to be looked at too. Why are journey times on non-London inter city lines so poor comoared to those to and from London ? (And of course this.applies elsewhere too, in particular on the Cross-Country line).

And that's before addressing the need for better local services, such as the Manchester S Bahn you and I both support, or Merseyrail (or Merseyrail-standard) local services replacing the current Lime Street locals.

The north may at present be a long way behind the south in getting people out of cars and onto trains, but it needn't always be like that.

 

[The Ham]

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

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

The problem with trying to increase the number of tracks along an existing alignment is that it would cost more (more than the difference between a standard line and a HS line) not least because it would requirea lot of land through towns and cities as well as lots of works at stations. There would further costs in the form of having to upgrade every junction.

Without the cost of upgrading every junction then you would massively limit the amount of extra capacity you could provide.

As such if you are going to four track, you are better off by doing so in a way which bypasses a lot of more minor stations and ideally the towns they serve.

Also by building ona new alignment you don't have to use specialist rail contractors for the earthworks (digging out and building up the ground), nor do you need to work overnight or in short blockades. All of which adds costs, which by building away from the original tracks saves even more money.

If you have done that then the amount you have saved is significantly more than the extra cost of making the line goes faster. However by making it go faster you gain other benefits.

I sometimes love the logic on here for people who in the same posts can say:
- Liverpool can't possibly cope without a HS line to it because it needs more speed and more services
- HS2 shouldn't be built all the way, as a HS line is too costly and we'd be better off four/six tracking existing lines as there isn't a need for speed.

 

[The Ham]

I know what a stress test is. The reason for having them is exploring worst case scenarios. The worst case scenario identified by KPMG suggests that Liverpool, but not other core cities served by HS2, will lose out economically. The best case scenario suggests it will do less well than all those other core cities. Not a great sales pitch.

I think you've made your point that you do not accept the relevance of the KPMG report, and I have explained why it concerns me , in exhaustive.detail.

No try again, a stress test does not look at worse case scenarios.

 

[notlob.divad]

The problem with trying to increase the number of tracks along an existing alignment is that it would cost more (more than the difference between a standard line and a HS line) not least because it would requirea lot of land through towns and cities as well as lots of works at stations. There would further costs in the form of having to upgrade every junction.

Without the cost of upgrading every junction then you would massively limit the amount of extra capacity you could provide.

As such if you are going to four track, you are better off by doing so in a way which bypasses a lot of more minor stations and ideally the towns they serve.

Also by building ona new alignment you don't have to use specialist rail contractors for the earthworks (digging out and building up the ground), nor do you need to work overnight or in short blockades. All of which adds costs, which by building away from the original tracks saves even more money.

If you have done that then the amount you have saved is significantly more than the extra cost of making the line goes faster. However by making it go faster you gain other benefits.

I sometimes love the logic on here for people who in the same posts can say:
- Liverpool can't possibly cope without a HS line to it because it needs more speed and more services
- HS2 shouldn't be built all the way, as a HS line is too costly and we'd be better off four/six tracking existing lines as there isn't a need for speed.

Woooosh - Misses the point.

I agree that something like phase 1 is needed because of the relative slowness of the southern WCML, ... bI would have preferred a route prioritising capacity over speed, if possible with 4 tracking to the point (probably north of Rugby) where it rejoined the WCML

B&I is clearly suggesting a new 4 track alignment. - Capacity over speed, not upgrading the exisitng lines. Once again you read one line of a post and assume one of the standard answers can be rolled out to dismiss it.

 

[notlob.divad]

Why can't that happen as well as HS2?

Because the designed route of HS2 north of Crewe, fails to meet the criteria:

running on an optimal alignment to central Manchester and across the Pennines

.

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

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

The dedicated HS line into Manchester, 'frees up' the wrong platform capacity. Manchester is desperatly 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 Manchesters 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 peple want to get in and out of and once there can use the exccellent, well funded local transport to get across and around it. In the North, no individual city is so dominently 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 crosscity - intercity capacity

 

[The Ham]

Woooosh - Misses the point.



B&I is clearly suggesting a new 4 track alignment. - Capacity over speed, not upgrading the exisitng lines. Once again you read one line of a post and assume one of the standard answers can be rolled out to dismiss it.

Sorry, my mistake, so in effect doubling the number of tracks on the Southern WCML.

Although that would provide lots of extra capacity over that stretch where would those trains go?

Liverpool? Maybe one or two more, but there's no more space.

Manchester? No there's not enough platform space.

Scotland? Maybe one or two more.

Where else? Even on a lowish number of services you could run 24tph over a 4 line railway.

Effectively all you've done is upgraded Rugby to get 20 tph and left the whole of the North with no extra capacity.

By building new stations in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, etc. You massively increase the station capacities which will allow other local services to run.

 

[frodshamfella]

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

Some might go via Wigan, but I don't think many would pick that route unless it much cheaper, not with the Merseyrail frequency in Liverpool . If you get a Northern cancelled that's it your stuffed, it's just a more reliable route via Lime Street. Just my opinion, plus anecdotal reference from a mate I have who lives over there.

 

[Altfish]

..... so in effect doubling the number of tracks on the Southern WCML.

Won't that cost more than HS2?

 

[The Ham]

Because the designed route of HS2 north of Crewe, fails to meet the criteria: .


The dedicated HS line into Manchester, 'frees up' the wrong platform capacity. Manchester is desperatly 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 Manchesters 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 peple want to get in and out of and once there can use the exccellent, well funded local transport to get across and around it. In the North, no individual city is so dominently 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 crosscity - intercity capacity

Although it wouldn't help (directly) with cross city services, it could allow more (or at least longer) services to Leeds.

It may well be that other works are needed to provide other services, but at least the platform capacity is available.

I didn't say that it was the only reason for HS2, nor was I saying that it was perfect, I was saying that it is another advantage which is often overlooked when people talk about HS2.

 

[The Ham]

Won't that cost more than HS2?

Probably not more than the whole of HS2, but certainly more than phase 1 with a lot less advantages.

 

[notlob.divad]

Where's your home town?

Which specific town I refer to as my home town is irrelevent. But there are a multitude of towns across the North, be it Halifax, Burnley, Rochdale or Scunthorpe, whos residents will suffer the most from this project, seeing little if any benefit whislt still contributing to the cost. The economies of these places, already decimated by years of de-industrialisation are slowly finding a 2nd life as dormitary towns for the nearby cities. Once HS2 turns those cities into London dormitaries with some additional call centres and back office functions, what little economic life remains in the towns will go.

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

That doesn't mean we should build the bad bits as well, just because a section of it is nessesary. As you say, we have one shot at doing this, so lets get it right. Design the whole network as a network and build the bits that are most crucial. A Line from London to the North West via Birmingham, A line from Liverpool to the North East (and on to Scotland) via the 'Northern Belt cities'. A Line from Leeds to the South West (Bristol) via Birmingham. Then look at how best to link them all together, remembering the Golden rule that a 5 minute detour on a 30 mile journey, has significantly bigger impact than a 5 minute detour on a 210 mile journey.

 

[frodshamfella]

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

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

I actually feel the same about HS2...I'd far rather the cash was spent on all the issues of getting around the north of England which is still poor.
Mind you I will be retired by the time I see anything of HS2 so won't be 8n such a rush then !!

 

[notlob.divad]

Sorry, my mistake, so in effect doubling the number of tracks on the Southern WCML.

Although that would provide lots of extra capacity over that stretch where would those trains go?

Liverpool? Maybe one or two more, but there's no more space.

Manchester? No there's not enough platform space.

Scotland? Maybe one or two more.

Where else? Even on a lowish number of services you could run 24tph over a 4 line railway.

Effectively all you've done is upgraded Rugby to get 20 tph and left the whole of the North with no extra capacity.

By building new stations in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, etc. You massively increase the station capacities which will allow other local services to run.

The point is that many more locations could get the capacity enhancements they need rather than it being limited to a handful of chosen cities.

Each of the places you refer to could be sorted out with localised interventions, that have the added benefit of directly improving the local transport. Crossrail has almost been completed across London. Some would say a nessesary improvement in London's transport infrastructure. If only Leeds/Manchester/Liverpool were allowed a fraction of that level of investment in their local infrastructure. The transformation that a true Manchester or Leeds S-Bahn. could have. It would free up the terminating platforms for those extra services, whilst allowing locals to cross the city centre. In the same whay that those living in and around London take for granted everyday.

 

[B&I]

The problem with trying to increase the number of tracks along an existing alignment is that it would cost more (more than the difference between a standard line and a HS line) not least because it would requirea lot of land through towns and cities as well as lots of works at stations. There would further costs in the form of having to upgrade every junction.

Without the cost of upgrading every junction then you would massively limit the amount of extra capacity you could provide.

As such if you are going to four track, you are better off by doing so in a way which bypasses a lot of more minor stations and ideally the towns they serve.

Also by building ona new alignment you don't have to use specialist rail contractors for the earthworks (digging out and building up the ground), nor do you need to work overnight or in short blockades. All of which adds costs, which by building away from the original tracks saves even more money.

If you have done that then the amount you have saved is significantly more than the extra cost of making the line goes faster. However by making it go faster you gain other benefits.

I sometimes love the logic on here for people who in the same posts can say:
- Liverpool can't possibly cope without a HS line to it because it needs more speed and more services
- HS2 shouldn't be built all the way, as a HS line is too costly and we'd be better off four/six tracking existing lines as there isn't a need for speed.

It would appar that I have not made myself sufficiently clear. I was referring to.a 4 track HS2.trunk, designed for capacity rather than speed. I am aware that the WCML is already 4 tracked most ofnthe wqy from Euston to Crewe

 

[B&I]

No try again, a stress test does not look at worse case scenarios.

In which case the KPMG report, which sets out numerous scenarios for economic imoact based on business sensitivity, does not involve stress testing.

I know that you are desperate to minimise the impact of the KPMG report, but the more time you spend on this the less convincing it becomes.

 

[B&I]

Woooosh - Misses the point.



B&I is clearly suggesting a new 4 track alignment. - Capacity over speed, not upgrading the exisitng lines. Once again you read one line of a post and assume one of the standard answers can be rolled out to dismiss it.

In fairness to The Ham I could have made myself clearer

 

[notlob.divad]

Its perfectly reasonable because it would be a waste of paths through Cheadle, Stockport and into Piccadilly to extend the service to Manchester when it will have 3 much faster services via Crewe (although I think only 1 will stop). Macclesfield, Stoke and Stafford are currently served by Virgin Trains therefore the options is to significantly downgrade their service or attach a 200m unit to a 200m Liverpool unit.

Manchester would have 3 faster services, to London, but a reduction in services to Macclesfield, Stoke and Stafford, and obviously those places to Manchester. If those places need to retain their direct London services, it is logical that they also benefit from retaining their direct Manchester Service. So having one Classic Compatible service per hour on the exisitng route is emminently sensible. That is why irrespective of what anyone on here says, I don't believe that there will be a Macclesfield Terminator when it can serve a useful purpose by extending to Manchester. Just like there won't be a Preston terminator when it can serve a useful purpose extending to a natural terminus (Blackpool). The Crewe terminator may well terminate at Crewe, simply because of the Politics of someone having to pay for wires to Chester and beyond.

 

[B&I]

Because the designed route of HS2 north of Crewe, fails to meet the criteria: .


The dedicated HS line into Manchester, 'frees up' the wrong platform capacity. Manchester is desperatly 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 Manchesters 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 peple want to get in and out of and once there can use the exccellent, well funded local transport to get across and around it. In the North, no individual city is so dominently 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 crosscity - intercity capacity

This is what annoys me when posters on here claim that opposition to phase 2b stems from Scouse Mancphobia. The high speed plans could and should be re-drawn in a way which would improve the lot of a greater proportion of Manucnians, as.well as everyone else. Instead, HS2 plans to.perpetuate the prioritisation of London services over all else which already blights network development around Manchester

 

[notlob.divad]

In fairness to The Ham I could have made myself clearer

I thought what you said was perfectly clear. Building a brand new line with the capacity to ensure everywhere in need of an uplift in service can receive it, with some extra for future requirements. Rather than planning to use every available path from day 1 serving a handful of select places.

It is an eminently sensible and affordable suggestion and as a result I am confident it is outside of the scope of thinking of any of the decision makers in the UK.

 

[Altfish]

This is what annoys me when posters on here claim that opposition to phase 2b stems from Scouse Mancphobia. The high speed plans could and should be re-drawn in a way which would improve the lot of a greater proportion of Manucnians, as.well as everyone else. Instead, HS2 plans to.perpetuate the prioritisation of London services over all else which already blights network development around Manchester

I don't see that. It follows the route it does to pick up the airport, now you can argue it shouldn't but it is a huge market and one which will also pick up a lot of the Stockport/Wilmslow and even Macclesfield travellers. It is also adjacent to a motorway so if sufficient parking is provided it could become a parkway station. A link to Liverpool could be off the (currently scrapped) Preston/Scotland link.

 

[B&I]

Sorry, my mistake, so in effect doubling the number of tracks on the Southern WCML.

Although that would provide lots of extra capacity over that stretch where would those trains go?

Liverpool? Maybe one or two more, but there's no more space.

Manchester? No there's not enough platform space.

Scotland? Maybe one or two more.

Where else? Even on a lowish number of services you could run 24tph over a 4 line railway.

Effectively all you've done is upgraded Rugby to get 20 tph and left the whole of the North with no extra capacity.

By building new stations in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, etc. You massively increase the station capacities which will allow other local services to run.

So, HS2 is all about capacity, until it isn't. This is why we are spending £50 bn on a railway which will be full from opening.

Did you forget the eastern branch when you were pondering alternate destinations ?

As pointed out to you, by someone who, I suspect, knows Manchester rather better than you do, HS2 is not.providing capacity in the place where Manchester needs it most. It won't even do that much for the Stockport corridor, because so.many long distance trains will continue to plough down that.

I could say something similar about Leeds. HS2 will do nothing about the 2 track bottleneck east of Leeds City.

 

[B&I]

Although it wouldn't help (directly) with cross city services, it could allow more (or at least longer) services to Leeds.

It may well be that other works are needed to provide other services, but at least the platform capacity is available.

I didn't say that it was the only reason for HS2, nor was I saying that it was perfect, I was saying that it is another advantage which is often overlooked when people talk about HS2.

It may be another 'advantage' which is overlooked becauae it is miniscule. When arguingnthat HS2 would permit more platform capacity for trains from Piccadilly to Leeds (something HS2 qill.not do anything else to facilitate), did you take into account that the lion's share of Manchester-Leeds services have deliberately been moved onto the via Ashton, rather than via Guide Bridge route ? And do younthink that what Manchester really needs is an increase on its current 6 TPE services to Leeds, rather than more capacity for its rubbish local network ?

 

[Altfish]

I've just got back from 16 days in China. They don't mess about there with high speed rail, we travelled the best part of 3000 miles by train, all high speed, they were mainly 16-car trains and they were rammed.
We passed numerous HS rail construction schemes.
They don't worry about if Xi'an or Chengdu gets their connection first, they know it will follow. At Beijing HS Station there were 32 platforms, most just for future schemes.
My only complaint was that most of the stations were on the edge of the cities and could be 30 minutes away.

 

[B&I]

The point is that many more locations could get the capacity enhancements they need rather than it being limited to a handful of chosen cities.

Each of the places you refer to could be sorted out with localised interventions, that have the added benefit of directly improving the local transport. Crossrail has almost been completed across London. Some would say a nessesary improvement in London's transport infrastructure. If only Leeds/Manchester/Liverpool were allowed a fraction of that level of investment in their local infrastructure. The transformation that a true Manchester or Leeds S-Bahn. could have. It would free up the terminating platforms for those extra services, whilst allowing locals to cross the city centre. In the same whay that those living in and around London take for granted everyday.

Exactly. A line which gets Mancunians across the city from north to south on loxal servicea, as well as providing more capaxity doe southbound.long-distance trains, would be more use for most of them than a line getting them to London, Birmingham and nowhere else faster

 

[B&I]

I've just got back from 16 days in China. They don't mess about there with high speed rail, we travelled the best part of 3000 miles by train, all high speed, they were mainly 16-car trains and they were rammed.
We passed numerous HS rail construction schemes.
They don't worry about if Xi'an or Chengdu gets their connection first, they know it will follow. At Beijing HS Station there were 32 platforms, most just for future schemes.
My only complaint was that most of the stations were on the edge of the cities and could be 30 minutes away.

They also like suppressing free speech, firing squads and putting large proportions of their own population in labour camps. Perhaps we should focus on building railway infrastructure most suitable for Britain

 

[notlob.divad]

I don't see that. It follows the route it does to pick up the airport, now you can argue it shouldn't but it is a huge market and one which will also pick up a lot of the Stockport/Wilmslow and even Macclesfield travellers. It is also adjacent to a motorway so if sufficient parking is provided it could become a parkway station. A link to Liverpool could be off the (currently scrapped) Preston/Scotland link.

And who does it pick the airport up for? The next stop on the railway is already adjacent to Birmingham Airport whilst Manchester currently has something like 9 trains an hour to a more convenient airport station, none of which are even close to full. Access to the airport is required from north of the city which the HS2 design does not provide due to it's terminating platforms in the centre of Manchester.

So what you are left with is a parkway station for the good Bürgers of Tatton. Are you really saying that the good Bürgers would not enjoy the luxury of their Range Rover, Porshe or McClaren for 10 minutes more to drive one motorway junction in the opposite direction to a Parkway station where the trunk line crosses the M56 near the junction of the A556. So that the alignment into central Manchester could take a more direct and useful alignment.

 

[B&I]

I don't see that. It follows the route it does to pick up the airport, now you can argue it shouldn't but it is a huge market and one which will also pick up a lot of the Stockport/Wilmslow and even Macclesfield travellers. It is also adjacent to a motorway so if sufficient parking is provided it could become a parkway station. A link to Liverpool could be off the (currently scrapped) Preston/Scotland link.

You and I have already argued over this to tedious extremes. Manchester Airport does not generate sufficient railway custom.to justify the entire high speed network being distorted around it.

And if Liverpool doesn't justify a high speed line, the good burghers of Tatton certainly don't, regardless of the extent to which the 'do you know who I am ?' mentality dominates public policy in modern England. There's a perfectly adequate network of local trains which will get them to Crewe in less time than it is currently planned that it will take Liverpolitans to reach it on classic compatibles

 

[Ianno87]

You and I have already argued over this to tedious extremes. Manchester Airport does not generate sufficient.railway custom.to justify the entire high speed network.beung distorted aeound it. And if Liverpool doesn't justify a high speed line, the good burghers of Tatton certainly dont. There's a perfectly adequate network.of.local trains which will get them to Crewe in less time than it is currently.planned that it will take Liverpolitans to reach it on clasic.compatibles

Manchester "Airport" station isn't really about serving Manchester Airport (though it is a side benefit being located nearby), it's really about:

-Serving the Airport City development, enabling business growth in this area, and
-Performing the current function of Stockport/Macclesfield/Wilmslow etc., as a 'South Manchester Parkway'

I recall that the provision of a station is subject to seperate 3rd party funding (based on the business benefits that would be accrued)

 

[Altfish]

You and I have already argued over this to tedious extremes. Manchester Airport does not generate sufficient railway custom.to justify the entire high speed network being distorted around it.

And if Liverpool doesn't justify a high speed line, the good burghers of Tatton certainly don't, regardless of the extent to which the 'do you know who I am ?' mentality dominates public policy in modern England. There's a perfectly adequate network of local trains which will get them to Crewe in less time than it is currently planned that it will take Liverpolitans to reach it on classic compatibles

You are an angry man.
Like it or not, residents of Tatton are likely to be a key market for HS2. If you live in Knutsford or Macclesfield, getting to Crewe by rail is a non-starter