Liverpool and High Speed Two.

the golden vision · December 28th, 2009, 11:51 AM

Seen this in yesterday's Times: " On Wednesday High Speed Two,a government backed company of engineers and experts who have drawn up the proposals, will give their report to Lord Adonis. Its preferred option is for a line runnning from west london,stopping at Heathrow airport before heading through Buckinghamshire and the Chilterns where it will divide. One branch will run west of the pennines to Manchester,Glasgow and Edinburgh,the other will run northeast to Sheffield,Leeds and Newcastle." So that means Liverpool will be major city north of the capital not on the line. If it can fork off to go to both Glasgow and Edinburgh , a spur can built to Liverpool, the lobbying should start now not in 10 years when line is starting be built.

bluesnapper · December 28th, 2009, 12:08 PM

Liverpool is never mentioned in any of the media outlets apart from the LDP&E.

We will not be included in this.

As for getting our MPs to do anything, miracles are not on the agenda.

Cherguevara · December 28th, 2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the golden vision

Seen this in yesterday's Times: " On Wednesday High Speed Two,a government backed company of engineers and experts who have drawn up the proposals, will give their report to Lord Adonis. Its preferred option is for a line runnning from west london,stopping at Heathrow airport before heading through Buckinghamshire and the Chilterns where it will divide. One branch will run west of the pennines to Manchester,Glasgow and Edinburgh,the other will run northeast to Sheffield,Leeds and Newcastle." So that means Liverpool will be major city north of the capital not on the line. If it can fork off to go to both Glasgow and Edinburgh , a spur can built to Liverpool, the lobbying should start now not in 10 years when line is starting be built.

I doubt Liverpool won't have a link to the network. Perhaps not a dedicated high speed spur, but a link will almost certainly be included, in the first stage through the WCML north of Brum and if later stages reach Manchester then presumably using one of the existing east-west lines.

Liverpool City Council is already respresented on the HSR\\UK lobbying group (along with the other core cities) although that organisation is more concerned with ensuring a network is built rather than sepcifically where it goes.

the golden vision · December 28th, 2009, 12:22 PM

You just concern yourself with Manchester, "assurances" from somebody with a vested interest in Liverpool being a support act are invalid. I notice none ot the regular Manchester visitors to this forum commented on the post about NHS Consultants being moved from Liverpool to Manchester.

Salif · December 28th, 2009, 12:30 PM

The map shown has Liverpool on, in fact it appears to be much closer to the core route then Manchester is. I dare say Liverpool might be our 'Lille' with a triangle junction outside the city and a branch running into whichever station it will serve. Speaking of which any plans for that? Lime Street wouldn't take the longer trains without any major rebuilding. Only being able to take shorter trains would be a shame for Liverpool I think.

Cherguevara · December 28th, 2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the golden vision

You just concern yourself with Manchester, "assurances" from somebody with a vested interest in Liverpool being a support act are invalid. I notice none ot the regular Manchester visitors to this forum commented on the post about NHS Consultants being moved from Liverpool to Manchester.

I will concern myself with what I wish, and my views on the relative merits of better integration of the Liverpudlian and greater regional economy or human resources issues within the NHS has no impact on what I believe a high speed rail proposal will look like.

It's fairly clear that HS2 are proposing a Y shaped network with central stations for all the big cities sitting on the route. As it is almost impossible (and certainly undesirably expensive) to run a direct north-south route through Liverpool then this is unlikely to happen. However as the city generates a respectable amount of business travellers (who will be the primary market for this investment) and already has a fast WCML service (which removed to HS2 would free up line capacity) it would be equally foolish to not connect it to the wider network in some form.

Salif - No HS2 maps have been or will be released until the spring. The one on the BBC is based on the network rail proposals.

the golden vision · December 28th, 2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salif

The map shown has Liverpool on, in fact it appears to be much closer to the core route then Manchester is. I dare say Liverpool might be our 'Lille' with a triangle junction outside the city and a branch running into whichever station it will serve. Speaking of which any plans for that? Lime Street wouldn't take the longer trains without any major rebuilding. Only being able to take shorter trains would be a shame for Liverpool I think.

Not in yesterday's Times it doesn't(liverpool isn't shown at all,never mind a link) this isn't the first time i've seen these proposals and every time liverpool has been left out. Weren't the original proposals west coast(leaving newcastle out) which did include Liverpool and even mentioned the spur,these revised plans don't mention liverpool at all.

the golden vision · December 28th, 2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

I will concern myself with what I wish, and my views on the relative merits of better integration of the Liverpudlian and greater regional economy or human resources issues within the NHS has no impact on what I believe a high speed rail proposal will look like.

It's fairly clear that HS2 are proposing a Y shaped network with central stations for all the big cities sitting on the route. As it is almost impossible (and certainly undesirably expensive) to run a direct north-south route through Liverpool then this is unlikely to happen. However as the city generates a respectable amount of business travellers (who will be the primary market for this investment) and already has a fast WCML service (which removed to HS2 would free up line capacity) it would be equally foolish to not connect it to the wider network in some form.

I not even going to engage you and i'd wish others on here would latch on to your agenda.

Splendidineogh · December 28th, 2009, 12:44 PM

Excellent thread. Golden Vision is absolutely right, people need to start acting on this NOW. Once this sort of thing gets moving there is no stopping it. Things are still in the early stages, although even now it could be too late.

Liverpool's inclusion in this seems to be ambiguous and people in the city region have an absolute right to know whether they will benefit from this massive public project. It will have a massive bearing on the prosperity of the area for decades to come.

Liverpool's councillors and especially its MPs need to be giving reassurances about this. They need to be DEMANDING that Liverpool is included with guarantees from given from the Government. This is potentially more important than anything that will happen for the next 50 years. If all the cities around Liverpool get a link and it doesn't, then it is as good as being relegated to the dustbin of history. I think a Labour voting city region deserves some reassurances from this Government.

Bravo Goldenvision. People need to start emailing now! Write to the local press as well. They need to justify why they keep publishing information that no other media outlet does. Why are they doing that?

The map that I have seen did include Liverpool (after Warrington) on a spur, but is this official? Can it be trusted? I find it odd that Manchester, which would require a very long spur, is taken as given as an inclusion on the route. But for Liverpool there is uncertainty.

Sheffield, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham..... there is a very worrying omission from that list.

ACT NOW!

the golden vision · December 28th, 2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salif

The map shown has Liverpool on, in fact it appears to be much closer to the core route then Manchester is. I dare say Liverpool might be our 'Lille' with a triangle junction outside the city and a branch running into whichever station it will serve. Speaking of which any plans for that? Lime Street wouldn't take the longer trains without any major rebuilding. Only being able to take shorter trains would be a shame for Liverpool I think.

The map in yesterday's Times....full page article....Liverpool not mentioned.

Salif · December 28th, 2009, 03:29 PM

I guess the BBC like you better then the Times do then.

Looking at the urban build up around Manchester I think it will make more sense to route HS2 closer to Liverpool with a spur to Manchester.

21C Liverpool · December 28th, 2009, 05:49 PM

what do we all think the root cause of this? why is Liverpool not included?

Martin S · December 28th, 2009, 06:29 PM

I think that it is highly unlikely that a high speed rail alignment could be taken through the centre of Manchester as shown. That Times map seems to have been drawn by a journalist.

I think that the most likely alignment would follow the M6 to the east of Warrington and then access Liverpool via the Warrington Central line which runs practically straight to Edge Hill.

That is not the most direct route but the problem is crossing the Mersey. So I think the only alternative would be a spur to the Weaver Junction to Runcorn line and then over the Runcorn Bridge and along the classic route to Lime Street. That would probably cut journey time but it would mean that Warrington would lose its London connection (as Bank Quay would be by-passed).

Whilst that would not be the ideal solution from Liverpool's point of view, it might work in the city's favour as the additional market from Warrington should bolster passenger numbers enough to ensure a high frequency service.

Gareth · December 28th, 2009, 06:52 PM

I suspect it's just lousey journalism and a direct consequence of how relatively absent we are in the national media's consciousness.

HollyBlack · December 28th, 2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin S

I think that it is highly unlikely that a high speed rail alignment could be taken through the centre of Manchester as shown. That Times map seems to have been drawn by a journalist. ...

Agreed.

If this railway is to be truly high speed it cannot possibly run though any cities at all.

It must largely follow green fields with roughly 100mph spurs to large cities that follow historical rail routes. It can enter termini (Glasgow and Edinburgh) because high speed is obviously not allowed inside a terminus. The exception being London which is very difficult to go around due to its size (to create a nonstop Midlands to Chunnel link).

Interestingly, almost any good green fields route goes right by Manchester airport.

And while we are on it, I don't see how building 80 miles of HSR from Leeds to Newcastle makes as much sense as building 40 miles of 140mph railway from Carlisle to Newcastle.

Frodz · December 28th, 2009, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 21C Liverpool

what do we all think the root cause of this? why is Liverpool not included?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin S

I think that it is highly unlikely that a high speed rail alignment could be taken through the centre of Manchester as shown. That Times map seems to have been drawn by a journalist.

Precisely, I wouldn't take it to mean much. The only diagram that means anything is the one released by HS2.

Toadboy · December 28th, 2009, 07:23 PM

Does Warrington need a London link? Better, faster and more frequent links to Lime Street and Piccadilly would be better.

Martin S · December 28th, 2009, 07:45 PM

I think it would be politically very difficult to take Warrington's London link away. Being right on the WCML, it has a better service than Liverpool and there is a lot of business in that area that make use of it.

dojo · December 28th, 2009, 08:06 PM

Similarly to Warrington, I always wondered why Crewe was important enough to have such a good transport infrastructure. I realise being where it is in the country is perhaps a decent reason, but still. Crewe?

JohnnyLeigh · December 28th, 2009, 08:06 PM

Network Rail put it quite simply;
A HS2 line which has a Warrington branch linking to Liverpool is the economically justifiable line, going straight to manchester is not.

If Liverpool is omitted from this then you have your smoking gun, that the government is irrationally working to isolate/destroy the city.

To be honest though Liverpool makes life hard for itself, if the city wasn't balkanised - why is a huge chunk of north liverpool in Sefton? why does knowsley even exist? - its population figure, in the statistics the government clings to, would reflect reality and the city would be impossible to ignore.

December 28th, 2009, 11:51 AM	#1
the golden vision Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,837 Likes (Received): 211	Liverpool and High Speed Two. Seen this in yesterday's Times: " On Wednesday High Speed Two,a government backed company of engineers and experts who have drawn up the proposals, will give their report to Lord Adonis. Its preferred option is for a line runnning from west london,stopping at Heathrow airport before heading through Buckinghamshire and the Chilterns where it will divide. One branch will run west of the pennines to Manchester,Glasgow and Edinburgh,the other will run northeast to Sheffield,Leeds and Newcastle." So that means Liverpool will be major city north of the capital not on the line. If it can fork off to go to both Glasgow and Edinburgh , a spur can built to Liverpool, the lobbying should start now not in 10 years when line is starting be built.

December 28th, 2009, 06:52 PM	#14
Gareth Keltlandia Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Liverpool Posts: 8,938 Likes (Received): 59	I suspect it's just lousey journalism and a direct consequence of how relatively absent we are in the national media's consciousness. Last edited by Gareth; December 28th, 2009 at 07:07 PM.

December 28th, 2009, 07:23 PM	#17
Toadboy Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Liverpool, in the North of England but not of it Posts: 8,860 Likes (Received): 141	Does Warrington need a London link? Better, faster and more frequent links to Lime Street and Piccadilly would be better. __________________ Duh! Knows

December 28th, 2009, 08:06 PM	#19
dojo Registered User Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Liverpool (home)/London (uni) Posts: 81 Likes (Received): 0	Similarly to Warrington, I always wondered why Crewe was important enough to have such a good transport infrastructure. I realise being where it is in the country is perhaps a decent reason, but still. Crewe? __________________ my random musings: twitter.com/bensoutham

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

December 28th, 2009, 12:22 PM	#4
the golden vision Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,837 Likes (Received): 211	You just concern yourself with Manchester, "assurances" from somebody with a vested interest in Liverpool being a support act are invalid. I notice none ot the regular Manchester visitors to this forum commented on the post about NHS Consultants being moved from Liverpool to Manchester.

December 28th, 2009, 12:30 PM	#5
Salif I am very f**king nice! Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Northumbria Posts: 4,869 Likes (Received): 4	The map shown has Liverpool on, in fact it appears to be much closer to the core route then Manchester is. I dare say Liverpool might be our 'Lille' with a triangle junction outside the city and a branch running into whichever station it will serve. Speaking of which any plans for that? Lime Street wouldn't take the longer trains without any major rebuilding. Only being able to take shorter trains would be a shame for Liverpool I think.

December 28th, 2009, 12:44 PM	#9
Splendidineogh Ffestiniog Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 809 Likes (Received): 0	Excellent thread. Golden Vision is absolutely right, people need to start acting on this NOW. Once this sort of thing gets moving there is no stopping it. Things are still in the early stages, although even now it could be too late. Liverpool's inclusion in this seems to be ambiguous and people in the city region have an absolute right to know whether they will benefit from this massive public project. It will have a massive bearing on the prosperity of the area for decades to come. Liverpool's councillors and especially its MPs need to be giving reassurances about this. They need to be DEMANDING that Liverpool is included with guarantees from given from the Government. This is potentially more important than anything that will happen for the next 50 years. If all the cities around Liverpool get a link and it doesn't, then it is as good as being relegated to the dustbin of history. I think a Labour voting city region deserves some reassurances from this Government. Bravo Goldenvision. People need to start emailing now! Write to the local press as well. They need to justify why they keep publishing information that no other media outlet does. Why are they doing that? The map that I have seen did include Liverpool (after Warrington) on a spur, but is this official? Can it be trusted? I find it odd that Manchester, which would require a very long spur, is taken as given as an inclusion on the route. But for Liverpool there is uncertainty. Sheffield, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham..... there is a very worrying omission from that list. ACT NOW!

December 28th, 2009, 03:29 PM	#11
Salif I am very f**king nice! Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Northumbria Posts: 4,869 Likes (Received): 4	I guess the BBC like you better then the Times do then. Looking at the urban build up around Manchester I think it will make more sense to route HS2 closer to Liverpool with a spur to Manchester.

December 28th, 2009, 05:49 PM	#12
21C Liverpool Design Journal/ Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Liverpool Posts: 399 Likes (Received): 0	what do we all think the root cause of this? why is Liverpool not included?

December 28th, 2009, 06:29 PM	#13
Martin S LIVERPOOL England Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 6,573 Likes (Received): 65	I think that it is highly unlikely that a high speed rail alignment could be taken through the centre of Manchester as shown. That Times map seems to have been drawn by a journalist. I think that the most likely alignment would follow the M6 to the east of Warrington and then access Liverpool via the Warrington Central line which runs practically straight to Edge Hill. That is not the most direct route but the problem is crossing the Mersey. So I think the only alternative would be a spur to the Weaver Junction to Runcorn line and then over the Runcorn Bridge and along the classic route to Lime Street. That would probably cut journey time but it would mean that Warrington would lose its London connection (as Bank Quay would be by-passed). Whilst that would not be the ideal solution from Liverpool's point of view, it might work in the city's favour as the additional market from Warrington should bolster passenger numbers enough to ensure a high frequency service.

December 28th, 2009, 07:45 PM	#18
Martin S LIVERPOOL England Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 6,573 Likes (Received): 65	I think it would be politically very difficult to take Warrington's London link away. Being right on the WCML, it has a better service than Liverpool and there is a lot of business in that area that make use of it.

December 28th, 2009, 08:06 PM	#20
JohnnyLeigh Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 555 Likes (Received): 2	Network Rail put it quite simply; A HS2 line which has a Warrington branch linking to Liverpool is the economically justifiable line, going straight to manchester is not. If Liverpool is omitted from this then you have your smoking gun, that the government is irrationally working to isolate/destroy the city. To be honest though Liverpool makes life hard for itself, if the city wasn't balkanised - why is a huge chunk of north liverpool in Sefton? why does knowsley even exist? - its population figure, in the statistics the government clings to, would reflect reality and the city would be impossible to ignore.