Restarting HS2a

[Energy]

Andrew Gilligan was a gvmt adviser. You seem to think he was not. His document had input from transport exerts. Read it.

The document was published by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange and featured a foreword by Reform MP Richard Tice. While the document has some good points, it's far from apolitical.

As far as transport experts, he cites Ian Wray. I'd recommend reading the paper he co-wrote that supports HS2 2a.

This part of HS2 – a limited second stage (“Phase 2a”) – has a sound business case, Parliamentary Powers and much of the land needed for this connection across Staffordshire has already been obtained. Its aim is to create transport network capacity. It is in effect a project ready to go, held back now for over two years.

He suggested what?! Good grief!

To quote him in full...

A four-track tunnel with a four-platform station could handle at least 60tph, almost treble the existing capacity.

 

[Noddy]

Pick a story and stick with it.
First of all, you said "Liverpool City Region is a similar conurbation to Manchester", and when that was shown to be factually incorrect, you shapeshift and switch to talking about "city proper", which is (a) less relevant, and (2) not what you said to start with.
It's fair to assume that the rest of your argument is equally deceitful and duplicitous.

If I could like this I would!

The document was published by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange and featured a foreword by Reform MP Richard Tice. While the document has some good points, it's far from apolitical.


To quote him in full...

Quoting the About the Author statement:

Andrew Gilligan is Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange. He was previously a journalist with the Telegraph, the BBC’s Today programme, the Evening Standard and the Sunday Times, and is a former Journalist of the Year at the British Press Awards. Between 2019 and 2024 he was a senior adviser to two Prime Ministers.

But nothing about his extensive career in transportation. Wait a minute…

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Trying to be a bit more scientific about the Liverpool vs Manchester debate: I think the relevant populations are:
1. For Manchester, People who live in an area from which it would be easy to get to Manchester Piccadilly to connect with HS2, but would be much harder to get to Liverpool Lime Street.
2. For Liverpool, the same reasoning in reverse.

On a quick check of the maps, for Manchester that would roughly mean, the Manchester City Region (pop = 3 million) MINUS Wigan district (pop = 330 000). People in Wigan would either get a direct train to London or could equally easily get to Manchester or Liverpool. So that's a relevant population of about 2.7 million. You could question whether Blackburn should be included. My feeling is, no, because people in Blackburn can so easily get to Preston anyway to connect to trains to the South. You might also pick up a few people from Huddersfield/etc. but that's marginal because Huddersfield->Leeds->ECML works too.

For Liverpool the equivalent reasoning would roughly lead to, the Liverpool City Region (pop = 1.6 million) And you could possibly add Ellesmere Port (pop = 60K) from which Liverpool is doable by train though I suspect people in Ellesmere Port wanting HS2 would be just as likely to drive to Crewe (or to Runcorn for WCML trains Southwards). So you have relevant population of a bit over 1.6 million.

That says that taking HS2 to Manchester serves a significantly bigger population than taking it to Liverpool - though it's not twice as big. More like 2.7/1.6, so 70% more. (Obviously taking HS2 to both places would be even better).

 

[Noddy]

Trying to be a bit more scientific about the Liverpool vs Manchester debate: I think the relevant populations are:
1. For Manchester, People who live in an area from which it would be easy to get to Manchester Piccadilly to connect with HS2, but would be much harder to get to Liverpool Lime Street.
2. For Liverpool, the same reasoning in reverse.

On a quick check of the maps, for Manchester that would roughly mean, the Manchester City Region (pop = 3 million) MINUS Wigan district (pop = 330 000). People in Wigan would either get a direct train to London or could equally easily get to Manchester or Liverpool. So that's a relevant population of about 2.7 million. You could question whether Blackburn should be included. My feeling is, no, because people in Blackburn can so easily get to Preston anyway to connect to trains to the South.

For Liverpool that would roughly mean, the Liverpool City Region (pop = 1.6 million) And you could possibly add Ellesmere Port (pop = 60K) from which Liverpool is doable by train though I suspect people in Ellesmere Port wanting HS2 would be just as likely to drive Crewe (or to Runcorn for WCML trains Southwards). So you have relevant population of a bit over 1.6 million.

That says that taking HS2 to Manchester serves a significantly bigger population than taking it to Liverpool - though it's not twice as big. More like 2.7/1.6, so 70% more. (Obviously taking HS2 to both places would be even better).

You’ve taken Wigan and Blackburn off Manchester (fair enough), but you haven’t taken the likes of St Helens, Widnes, Runcorn off Liverpool. They’re just as likely to use Warrington, Crewe or Wigan depending on direction of travel as Blackburn is likely to use Preston. Not that it really matters because the station figures tell the story.

 

[Grimsby town]

To quote him in full...

Sorry it was at least 60 trains per hour. 30 trains, of varying type and journey purpose, per hour on a single track. No non-metro line has ever got anywhere near that number. Not to mention that he doesn't cost in the £10s billions to upgrade lines either side of the tunnel to accommodate dozens of trains every hour.

 

[Krokodil]

Lime St at Liverpool is served directly by metro from St.Helens, Chester, Southport and all the towns on the Wirral. The Wirral has a larger population than Newcastle.

No one from Chester or the southern Wirral is going to use Lime Street to travel to London, no matter how fast Avanti manage that leg in. Likewise from St Helens it is likely to be just as convenient to go to Warrington or Wigan.

I still can't work out what you aim to achieve with this new line of argument. Are you saying that HS2 is in fact too small in scope?

Andrew Gilligan was a gvmt adviser

He was a political advisor.

 

[Nottingham59]

Sorry it was at least 60 trains per hour. 30 trains, of varying type and journey purpose, per hour on a single track. No non-metro line has ever got anywhere near that number. Not to mention that he doesn't cost in the £10s billions to upgrade lines either side of the tunnel to accommodate dozens of trains every hour.

I suspect he meant 15tph on each of four tracks. ie. four minute headways. Quite achievable.

 

[Grimsby town]

I suspect he meant 15tph on each of four tracks. ie. four minute headways. Quite achievable.

He doesn't. He's talking in both direction terms throughout the document and compares it to the 30tph that the Elizabeth Line could potentially reach (but probably won't) which would obviously be 30 trains in each direction. The guy is clueless.

 

[MatthewHutton]

It was Uxbridge

Regarding labour, there is only one minister or secretary of state who isn't evil, incompetent, or both; that person has no say on railway policy.

Top issue in Uxbridge was ULEZ. Chesham and Amersham perhaps the top issue was HS2 - but that long predates the cancellation.

Upon thinking more about it the thing with phase 1 is that the expenditure split should have been something like £12bn for the London section, £4bn for the intermediate section to Birmingham, £4bn for the Birmingham section. If you take the figures given here and the rapid progress on the London section I suspect that the actual spend was in the £10-20bn range or thereabouts which isn’t bad, and that therefore to hit the sort of total budget of maybe £70-80bn that has been mooted that the spend on the rural section is much much higher than the £4bn it should have cost.

And the thing is with phase 2 is that it is most comparable to the rural section and therefore it had the same issues.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You’ve taken Wigan and Blackburn off Manchester (fair enough), but you haven’t taken the likes of St Helens, Widnes, Runcorn off Liverpool. They’re just as likely to use Warrington, Crewe or Wigan depending on direction of travel as Blackburn is likely to use Preston. Not that it really matters because the station figures tell the story.

Ah yes, good point. To do a fair comparison I should've removed Runcorn from Liverpool. St Helens and Widnes are probably half and half. I If HS2 served Liverpool so provided very fast trains to London from there, I could imagine some people from St Helens/Widnes would choose to go via Liverpool and some would choose via Wigan/Warrington, depending on connections and fares. That would shift the balance even more towards Manchester than my figures suggested.

To be pedantic I didn't take Blackburn off the Manchester City Region because Blackburn isn't in the Manchester City Region! I merely speculated about whether it could be added to the population figures, but decided against because Blackburn-Preston is so much shorter/faster than Blackburn-Manchester.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Ideally with limited capacity killing intermediate stops.

if you look at Parkway stations in France the ridership is actually extremely strong given the population levels. Le creusot TGV got 680,000 passengers a year in 2024 with only 1 train per two hours and only 140,000 people within 25km of it.

The much maligned Haute Picardie has 375,000 passengers a year with no direct Paris service and only 127,000 people within 25km.

Stoke Parkway would have 783,000 people within 25km assuming it was on the phase 2a route where the line is next to the M6 and where the railway also crosses it. You’d very easily be looking at a ridership of millions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2026 ==

Ah yes, good point. To do a fair comparison I should've removed Runcorn from Liverpool. St Helens and Widnes are probably half and half. I If HS2 served Liverpool so provided very fast trains to London from there, I could imagine some people from St Helens/Widnes would choose to go via Liverpool and some would choose via Wigan/Warrington, depending on connections and fares. That would shift the balance even more towards Manchester than my figures suggested.

To be pedantic I didn't take Blackburn off the Manchester City Region because Blackburn isn't in the Manchester City Region! I merely speculated about whether it could be added to the population figures, but decided against because Blackburn-Preston is so much shorter/faster than Blackburn-Manchester.

You obviously want to serve all of these places using the existing classic railways. That is something that is harder than in other countries but isn’t unsolvable. 2tph to Liverpool, 1tph to Chester, 2tph towards scotland, 3tph to Manchester and 3tph to Birmingham isn’t an unviable service level.

You could probably add on 2tph to Derby, Sheffield and maybe extending to Leeds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2026 ==

You don't know if they did. They haven't committed to reinstating it (though it sounds like the DfT is still working on the basis that  something needs doing about capacity through Stafford, and that 2A is the inevitable solution) but you don't know if they would have cancelled it of their own volition.

Why didn’t they campaign to reinstate it then?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2026 ==

Talk of running 60 trains per hour through a tunnel in Manchester

There are 60 trains an hour passing over the flat junction at Manchester Piccadilly today. You can say it’s crazy, and it is, but it happens.

 

[Noddy]

Ah yes, good point. To do a fair comparison I should've removed Runcorn from Liverpool. St Helens and Widnes are probably half and half. I If HS2 served Liverpool so provided very fast trains to London from there, I could imagine some people from St Helens/Widnes would choose to go via Liverpool and some would choose via Wigan/Warrington, depending on connections and fares. That would shift the balance even more towards Manchester than my figures suggested.

To be pedantic I didn't take Blackburn off the Manchester City Region because Blackburn isn't in the Manchester City Region! I merely speculated about whether it could be added to the figures, but decided against because Blackburn-Preston is so much shorter/faster than Blackburn-Manchester.

Good point about Blackburn!

I did notice you also added a comment about Huddersfield. My reasoning about this is that with the completed western leg London-Manchester Piccadilly was estimated to be 1hr 8min. Leeds-London journey time is 2hrs. Leeds is about 25 minutes closer to Huddersfield than Manchester (current journey times), so this means going via Manchester would be about 25 minutes faster. Manchester is also 3tph as opposed to 2tph from Leeds so potentially a quicker connection in the real world as well. Obviously if the eastern leg to Leeds was built the equation would be different, but the location of the HS station in Leeds always had a question mark against it.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Good point about Blackburn!

I did notice you also added a comment about Huddersfield. My reasoning about this is that with the completed western leg London-Manchester Piccadilly was estimated to be 1hr 8min. Leeds-London journey time is 2hrs. Leeds is about 25 minutes closer to Huddersfield than Manchester (current journey times), so this means going via Manchester would be about 25 minutes faster. Obviously if the eastern leg to Leeds was built the equation would be different, but the location of the HS station in Leeds always had a question mark against it.

Leeds would need a high speed line the whole way to really get trip times down and there’s a lot of built up areas along the way - so going via Manchester is an interesting idea.

Capacity would be a concern I guess.

 

[Nottingham59]

All good discussion points, but I fear we are drifting a little bit away from the Topic of restarting Phase 2a from Fradley Junction to just south of Crewe.

 

[AlexSJW]

No one from Chester or the southern Wirral is going to use Lime Street to travel to London, no matter how fast Avanti manage that leg in. Likewise from St Helens it is likely to be just as convenient to go to Warrington or Wigan.

I still can't work out what you aim to achieve with this new line of argument. Are you saying that HS2 is in fact too small in scope?


He was a political advisor.

I pointed out that the 'Y' shape design was appalling even leaving out a major important city like Liverpool from direct access. Then they came in making out Manchester was some big city like Barcelona, which it clearly is not being the size of Liverpool, so deserves to be privileged. Then others say Liverpool is not locally well connect to serve HS2, which is the best connected apart from London.
Warrington, Chester and Wigan were not to be directly connected to HS2, so they woul have to go to Lime St to catch HS2. I don't know what Avanti has to do with this. What I am saying is that HS2 was just a bad design from the start even missing out major cities not far away from HS2 track it was that bad.

Gilligan would be a political adviser as he worked for the prime minster.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Wigan were not to be directly connected to HS2, so they woul have to go to Lime St to catch HS2

As I've already said, that is what the Golborne link was for.

 

[AlexSJW]

Trying to be a bit more scientific about the Liverpool vs Manchester debate: I think the relevant populations are:
1. For Manchester, People who live in an area from which it would be easy to get to Manchester Piccadilly to connect with HS2, but would be much harder to get to Liverpool Lime Street.
2. For Liverpool, the same reasoning in reverse.

On a quick check of the maps, for Manchester that would roughly mean, the Manchester City Region (pop = 3 million) MINUS Wigan district (pop = 330 000). People in Wigan would either get a direct train to London or could equally easily get to Manchester or Liverpool. So that's a relevant population of about 2.7 million. You could question whether Blackburn should be included. My feeling is, no, because people in Blackburn can so easily get to Preston anyway to connect to trains to the South. You might also pick up a few people from Huddersfield/etc. but that's marginal because Huddersfield->Leeds->ECML works too.

For Liverpool the equivalent reasoning would roughly lead to, the Liverpool City Region (pop = 1.6 million) And you could possibly add Ellesmere Port (pop = 60K) from which Liverpool is doable by train though I suspect people in Ellesmere Port wanting HS2 would be just as likely to drive to Crewe (or to Runcorn for WCML trains Southwards). So you have relevant population of a bit over 1.6 million.

That says that taking HS2 to Manchester serves a significantly bigger population than taking it to Liverpool - though it's not twice as big. More like 2.7/1.6, so 70% more. (Obviously taking HS2 to both places would be even better).

Merseyside was to be the same size as SELNEC, which became Gtr Manchester. The populations would be similar. However in the early seventies the Redcliffe-Maud committee reduced Merseyside to sixty percent of the size of SELNEC. Merseyside is now so small it does not even cover all the banks of Mersey estuary.

So, if the the socio-economic and geographic reach of the original Merseyside are taken into account Manchester is no bigger and not better deserving to have billions spent on it building a high speed line and gold plated tunnel to the city. The original HS2 'Y' plan was appalling, and this is only one bad point of it.

As I've already said, that is what the Golborne link was for.

No HS2 trains were to stop in Warrington or Wigan. That was clear in the plan.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

No HS2 trains were to stop in Warrington or Wigan. That was clear in the plan.

In which case there'd be no reason to head to Liverpool, going to Crewe is already the correct direction.

 

[AlexSJW]

The document was published by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange and featured a foreword by Reform MP Richard Tice. While the document has some good points, it's far from apolitical.

As far as transport experts, he cites Ian Wray. I'd recommend reading the paper he co-wrote that supports HS2 2a.

Ian Wray went along with Gilligan to extend the length of the short trains in the north of England to tackle capacity problems.

 

[Krokodil]

There are 60 trains an hour passing over the flat junction at Manchester Piccadilly today. You can say it’s crazy, and it is, but it happens.

60 trains over six tracks with 14 platforms to service them. Not 120 trains (60 per direction) over four tracks with only four platforms to use. An urban metro might just about cope with two minutes to load passengers and reoccupy the platform but that simply cannot work on the wider network.

I pointed out that the 'Y' shape design was appalling even leaving out a major important city like Liverpool from direct access.

Liverpool would still save 30 minutes in journey times from using HS2 if 2A was open.

Warrington, Chester and Wigan were not to be directly connected to HS2, so they woul have to go to Lime St to catch HS2.

Warrington and Wigan were to have an hourly HS2 service. No one in their right minds from any of those three towns/cities would go via Lime Street to get to London, the Chester ones would jump on the shuttle to Crewe and pick up a HS2 service from there.

No HS2 trains were to stop in Warrington or Wigan. That was clear in the plan.

Both stations were anticipated to get an hourly service.

Ian Wray went along with Gilligan to extend the length of the short trains in the north of England to tackle capacity problems.

How do you tackle capacity problems on the southern WCML by extending local trains in Leeds/Manchester?

 

[Noddy]

Merseyside was to be the same size as SELNEC, which became Gtr Manchester. The populations would be similar. However in the early seventies the Redcliffe-Maud committee reduced Merseyside to sixty percent of the size of SELNEC. Merseyside is now so small it does not even cover all the banks of Mersey estuary.

So, if the the socio-economic and geographic reach of the original Merseyside are taken into account Manchester is no bigger and not better deserving to have billions spent on it building a high speed line and gold plated tunnel to the city. The original HS2 'Y' plan was appalling, and this is only one bad point of it.

That’s all very interesting but the socio-economic and geographical reach of the two respective cities is represented in the the passenger figures.

Manchester Piccadilly: 27 million users
Liverpool Lime Street: 14 million users

We can also look at the flow figures

London Euston-Manchester Piccadilly: 1.8 million
London Euston-Liverpool Lime Street: 0.9 million

Birmingham NS-Manchester P: 0.24 million
Birmingham NS-Liverpool LS: 0.08 million.

I don’t particularly like Manchester, and if I was designing it based on which places I liked or thought were ‘deserving’ (to quote you) it wouldn’t go there either. But using evidence and data it is clear why Manchester was targeted. If Liverpool had been targeted it would have been an extremely poor design choice.

 

[PartyOperator]

Ignoring administrative boundaries… twice as many people live within a 10 mile radius of Manchester Piccadilly as Liverpool Lime Street (2.6 million vs 1.3 million).

If we zoom out a bit, Manchester and Liverpool are part of a conurbation about the size of London but with half as many people. Other than being a good way to keep northerners from demanding too much from the south, squabbling between different groups of people in this very large urban area helps nobody.

 

[Trainman40083]

I thought Liverpool was to be served by using a section of NPR, from Cheshire.

 

[AlexSJW]

Ignoring administrative boundaries… twice as many people live within a 10 mile radius of Manchester Piccadilly as Liverpool Lime Street (2.6 million vs 1.3 million).

If we zoom out a bit, Manchester and Liverpool are part of a conurbation about the size of London but with half as many people. Other than being a good way to keep northerners from demanding too much from the south, squabbling between different groups of people in this very large urban area helps nobody.

You are incorrect. read: REBALANCING BRITAIN: POLICY OR SLOGAN? Liverpool City Region - Building on its Strengths: An independent report.
by The RT Hon the Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a795748e5274a3864fd62a2/11-1338-rebalancing-britain-liverpool-city-region.pdf

From the document:
''Large and specialist employers in Liverpool typically draw a bit wider, from places such as Wigan which is a half hour commute, creating a labour market with around 3 million people.

Liverpool (which has over two million people in its wider economic region)

Elsewhere, particularly in England, there has been a tendency to view Liverpool as being smaller and more peripheral than it actually is, with few appreciating that the city region has some 2.3 million people''.

The open moorland east of Manchester could be a desert or a lake, as few live there, and not exactly easy to get onto Manchester from there. More people live in Kirby than on all that open land. Land which few commute into Manchester from.

I thought Liverpool was to be served by using a section of NPR, from Cheshire.

It improved the journey time by one minute. Also Liverpool lost the London-Runcorn service. Not good. That was a strong proposal which went nowhere. The original 'Y' design and the kludged add on were appalling. Then look at the cost of all this incompetence.

That’s all very interesting but the socio-economic and geographical reach of the two respective cities is represented in the the passenger figures.

The Liverpool region is well served by London trains as it stands. The Wirral have the choice of Lime St or Chester. Widnes has Lime St or Warrington. Kirkby has Lime St or Wigan. Runcorn has its own London service. Southport has Lime St or Wigan.

Avanti increased trains into Liverpool it was that badly served. BTW, I live in London, which wins no matter what. I am highlighting the ridiculous original 'Y' HS2 design in bypassing a major city.

 

[Technologist]

60 trains over six tracks with 14 platforms to service them. Not 120 trains (60 per direction) over four tracks with only four platforms to use. An urban metro might just about cope with two minutes to load passengers and roccupy the platform but that simply cannot work on the wider network.

Why not?

I'm sure there is a list of constraints but how many of them are fundamental, we could change signalling, rolling stock, banish freight and conflicting trains.

 

[JamesT]

You are incorrect. read: REBALANCING BRITAIN: POLICY OR SLOGAN? Liverpool City Region - Building on its Strengths: An independent report.
by The RT Hon the Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a795748e5274a3864fd62a2/11-1338-rebalancing-britain-liverpool-city-region.pdf

From the document:
Large and specialist employers in Liverpool typically draw a bit wider, from places such as Wigan which is a half hour commute, creating a labour market with around 3 million people.

Liverpool (which has over two million people in its wider economic region)

Elsewhere, particularly in England, there has been a tendency to view Liverpool as being smaller and more peripheral than it actually is, with few appreciating that the city region has some 2.3 million people.

In what way is @PartyOperator incorrect? Are his numbers wrong? You've stated some different numbers for different boundaries of Liverpool (City Region), but not given any for Manchester. On a like for like measure, Manchester is larger than Liverpool, that's a simple fact.

It improved the journey time by one minute. Also Liverpool lost the London-Runcorn service. Not good. That was a strong proposal which went nowhere. the original 'Y' design and the kludged add on were appalling. Then look at the cost of all this incompetence.

Which journey time? Liverpool-London services were previously estimated to go from 134 minutes to 106 minutes with Phase 1, with a further reduction to 93 minutes with Phase 2a. NPR wasn't included in that modelling, but given that Manchester was supposed to get a 24 minute reduction from Phase 2b, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect some reduction in the time to get from Crewe to Liverpool if you're on high speed tracks all the way instead of the legacy WCML.

 

[Noddy]

The Liverpool region is well served by London trains. The Wirral have the choice of Lime St or Chester. Widnes has Lime St or Warrington. Kirkby has Lime St or Wigan. Southport has Lime St or Wigan. Avanti increased trains into Liverpool. BTW, I live in London, which wins no matter what. I am highlighting the ridiculous original 'Y' HS2 design in bypassing a major city.

None of this is based on facts and figures. Unfortunately for your thesis they don’t lie.

 

[AlexSJW]

You've stated some different numbers for different boundaries of Liverpool (City Region), but not given any for Manchester. On a like for like measure, Manchester is larger than Liverpool, that's a simple fact.

Manchester's reach is greater than Liverpool's, but not by much and not greater to warrant billions being spent on Manchester while Liverpool got near next to nothing. Also Manchester is surrounded by some of the poorest town in the country who are hardly likely to use intercity trains. Liverpool is surrounded by wealthy areas with Southport to the north, Chester to the south and the Wirral over the river.

The original 'Y' was a complete joke.

If anyone was designing a HSR project for the country, in the north of England Liverpool would be first to be pencilled in as it has a huge expanding deep water port needing the extra rail

None of this is based on facts and figures. Unfortunately for your thesis they don’t lie.

Read the Lord Hesseltine document I linked to. I gave some cuts from it.

 

[Noddy]

Manchester's reach is greater than Liverpool's, but not by much and not greater to warrant billions being spent on Manchester while Liverpool got near next to nothing. The original 'Y' was a complete joke.

If anyone was designing a HSR project for the country, in the north of England Liverpool would be first to be pencilled in as it has a huge expanding deep water port needing the extra rail


Read the Lord Hesseltine document I linked to. I gave some cuts from it.

You can make an argument that the Y shape was ‘ridiculous’ or ‘a complete joke’ (to quote you). I would even suggest the eastern arm was not as well developed as the western arm. But you are arguing it should have been a trident, one of the arms of which should serve a small target audience which had no prospect of serving markets beyond, unlike Manchester or Leeds.

It’s not just Manchesters reach. The flow passenger numbers don’t lie, on all the useful passenger metrics Manchester is roughly double Liverpool.

 

[BrianW]

In what way is @PartyOperator incorrect? Are his numbers wrong? You've stated some different numbers for different boundaries of Liverpool (City Region), but not given any for Manchester. On a like for like measure, Manchester is larger than Liverpool, that's a simple fact.



Which journey time? Liverpool-London services were previously estimated to go from 134 minutes to 106 minutes with Phase 1, with a further reduction to 93 minutes with Phase 2a. NPR wasn't included in that modelling, but given that Manchester was supposed to get a 24 minute reduction from Phase 2b, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect some reduction in the time to get from Crewe to Liverpool if you're on high speed tracks all the way instead of the legacy WCML.

This thread has generated so far 1317 postings since it was stared in July 2024. If all those words were laid together they would stretch ... and what have they produced?? So much 'discussion' about this boundary and that, this 'plan' and that, so much hot air. When all is said and done, much more said than done. Few doubt that investment is required for the benefit of the region, the country and all who live, work or study in it. The questions are how much, when and where? The 'answers' lie in politicians and their advisors, tempered by the occasional election. 'Something must be seen to be planned to be done, in the fulness of time ...', whatever the 'facts'. Meanwhile happy posting all.