Liverpool and High Speed Two.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by HollyBlack

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.

There's a new station proposed for central Birmingham, also as regards the map,tbh i wouludn't of thought a circle around a city meant is was going straight through the centre rather that it was on the line. What alerted me was i remember the original proposal and map which didn't include a line to the Northeast but included Liverpool with a spur. Is this the latest proposal, the preferred option? there's been a year of consultation on this. Until i see Liverpool marked out on any plans and specific guarantees given i will remain suspicious.

[butterfingers22]

In reply to a previous post, what would be the point of reducing the journey time from London to Manchester by an hour, only to go and run the line through Warrington meaning people would then have to spend another hour messing around getting connecting trains etc into Manchester city centre?

The line would HAVE to be built either through or very near to the city centre for it to make any sense at all. Personally if I was going to london I wouldn't want to go all the way to Warington and so on, when I could just get the 2.5 hour train for Manchester Piccadilly.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

There's a new station proposed for central Birmingham, also as regards the map,tbh i wouludn't of thought a circle around a city meant is was going straight through the centre rather that it was on the line. What alerted me was i remember the original proposal and map which didn't include a line to the Northeast but included Liverpool with a spur. Is this the latest proposal, the preferred option? there's been a year of consultation on this. Until i see Liverpool marked out on any plans and specific guarantees given i will remain suspicious.

These aren't plans. It's a drawing put together by someone is the Times graphic department based on the notes of a journalist who's been chatting to someone at HS2. It's not even consistent with what's written in the article, never mind what the government will publish in March. Don't take it so literally.

Johnny - No one is proposing a line that only goes to Manchester. The reason this diagram was drawn like this was because people at the Times don't care about the details. Sheffield isn't on the map either, and they mention a station there in the article.

[HollyBlack]

Originally Posted by butterfingers22

In reply to a previous post, what would be the point of reducing the journey time from London to Manchester by an hour, only to go and run the line through Warrington meaning people would then have to spend another hour messing around getting connecting trains etc into Manchester city centre? The line would HAVE to be built either through or very near to the city centre for it to make any sense at all. Personally if I was going to london I wouldn't want to go all the way to Warington and so on, when I could just get the 2.5 hour train for Manchester Piccadilly.

Pursuing that example, a 100mph line could leave the HSR somewhere near Wilmslow and proceed into Manchester on historic trackbed. This would allow a London-Manchester train to proceed at high-speed for most of the journey, but no more than 100mph for the last 10 or 15 miles (it has to come to rest at the terminus anyway so only a very few minutes are lost overall by not running HSR into urban areas).

The HSR itself would continue on Northwards past Manchester airport, across green fields with a 100+mph spur for Liverpool branching off somewhere East of Warrington.

London-Scotland non-stop trains could pass through the whole area at full speed. The cost difference of putting HSR through an urban area compared with limiting it to green fields (and airport land) is huge.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by HollyBlack

London-Scotland non-stop trains could pass through the whole area at full speed. The cost difference of putting HSR through an urban area compared with limiting it to green fields (and airport land) is huge.

That is true Holly but I'm reminded of the case of Lille in Northern France that was to be by-passed by the TGV-Nord on its route to the Channel Tunnel. Not only did the city clear a path for the train to go right through the centre but also bought up land on the alternative alignment so forcing the route to go through the city.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

These aren't plans. It's a drawing put together by someone is the Times graphic department based on the notes of a journalist who's been chatting to someone at HS2. It's not even consistent with what's written in the article, never mind what the government will publish in March. Don't take it so literally.

Johnny - No one is proposing a line that only goes to Manchester. The reason this diagram was drawn like this was because people at the Times don't care about the details. Sheffield isn't on the map either, and they mention a station there in the article.

Wait there..er... when are you getting round to why Liverpool doesn't need a link because Greater Manchester south is nearby...which is bigger,richer and is in fact the reason for human existence

[Martin S]

This is how I think HS2 might be connected to Liverpool. I have shown the main route following the alignment of the M6 and using the existing Warrington Central line via Widnes to access central Liverpool, meeting the existing line at South Parkway.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

Wait there..er... when are you getting round to why Liverpool doesn't need a link because Greater Manchester south is nearby...which is bigger,richer and is in fact the reason for human existence

I'm not because I don't believe it to be the case.

London is bigger and richer than Manchester, it doesn't stop Manchester from needing investment. It just requires a different type of investment. The same applies between Manchester and Liverpool. Fewer projected travellers from Merseyside mean that the facillities and infrastructure needed in Liverpool will be probably need to be less significant than those required in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. I say this not out of any irrational anti-scouse bias(as I've said before I like Liverpool and hope it continues to do well) but because it's what the network rail and Greengague reports suggested based on their modelling.

However as the difference between Liverpool and Manchester is nowhere near the difference between London and Manchester I'm fairly certain that Manchester won't be getting a tunnelled super through station nor that Liverpool will be left off the network entirely. Martin's idea seems a very sensible one, as it ensures that Warrington keeps a direct London link and that Liverpool is connected to the network with fairly little classic line running.

Martin - I never knew Lille did that, nor that the French government would let them get away with it. I know that Manchester City Council has investigated suitable sites for HSR in/near the city centre. I don't think they've got to the level of buying up Thelwall yet though.

[21C Liverpool]

Interesting points, however statistics can be misleading. Its worrying that Liverpool's predicament now suggests that smaller provisions should be made as it has less demand, less need etc

That cannot surely be a way forward as any gap there may be between Liverpool and Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham will only widen as these cities obtain priority in terms of infrastructure because, like with the Liverpool/Manchester airport saga in the past "nobody wants to travel to london on high speed from Liverpool".

Its not a bias here, nor an "anti anywere but Liverpool" attitude. Its simply a common sense one. Liverpool is a large city with a large conurbation and close again to North Wales and the catchment this creates.

If Liverpool continues to aspire to reposition itself as a successful city then to have to fight for basic links whilst very close neighbours seem to be prioritised by default can only cut Liverpool's chances before they get started.

I remember having to get a train to Lancaster once, before then getting a much older hourly train to Morecambe on a branch line. Can you really see investors, businessmen, national travellers etc or indeed those wanting to use the Heathrow hub making the choice to visit british cities or indeed seek new places of investment?

Leeds - High Speed - One hour from Heathrow
Liverpool - High Speed - Manchester - One Hour - Transpennine - 50 Mins
(and the delays, under investment and decline that the national rail system will no doubt face, and subsequent bad service)

Leeds it is then?

[McGrath]

You´re right. A bunch of Stalinists.

[Richard_A]

Originally Posted by Martin S

This is how I think HS2 might be connected to Liverpool. I have shown the main route following the alignment of the M6 and using the existing Warrington Central line via Widnes to access central Liverpool, meeting the existing line at South Parkway.

That does look like the most sensible option. I'd be surprised if the final outcome doesn't resemble the above, and given that, I'm not too concerned unless there are firm reasons to be so.

I don't think compaines will plan their location strategy solely on whether it takes 10, 20, 30 minutes more to get to city A or city B from the South East. Small differences in journey times are not important. All that matters is that as many northern cities as possible, including Liverpool, are made accessible via a quick, convenient, train journey, allowing same day returns, from London and the overheated South East.

I'm actually more concerned about whether high speed rail will actually happen at all, especially given the likelihood of a Conservative government commited to finding ways to cut public spending dramatically, likely, savagely. They've given lukewarm support to the concept, but that is easy and is very different to seeing it through whilst in government. Their track record on public transport is very poor.

And, The Chilterns (where I currently live) is a Conservative heartland. The route is planned to go north of Gerrard's Cross, Beaconsfield and High Wycombe and South of Amersham, Rickmansworth and Chorleywood. This is amongst the richest areas in the country, with a large proportion of those in top jobs in London living here. There will be huge opposition, with Conservative MPs responding to that. Historically, people here couldn't give two shits about how well connected the North is, certainly not enough to sacrifice some of the green belt.

Edge Lane x 1,000,000.

It would need to be forced through.

For a number of reasons, I don't think a Conservative government would have the inclination or appetite to do so.

[Richard_A]

The head of the High Speed 2 project which is planning the route of a new high speed rail link between London and Birmingham has indicated that it will definitely pass through the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In an interview with the Guardian published today Sir David Rowlands said he believed that the impact of the new line on the AONB could be reduced. The Chilterns Conservation Board is very concerned though that the construction and presence of such a major piece of transport infrastructure would permanently blight the Chilterns. It is also sceptical about the business case for the new line, believing that it would be much cheaper and have much less impact on the landscape to improve services on the existing rail network. The Board is also concerned that the Chilterns will see no benefits from High Speed 2, since none of its services will stop at local stations, and they might even disrupt trains on the Chiltern Railways network.

The exact details of the High Speed 2 route, which is being planned to within a few metres, will not be published until December this year. It is very unlikely to be completed before the early 2020's, with extensions to Manchester and the north taking a further decade.

http://www.chilternsaonb.org/news_detail.asp?ID=133

And...

The Chilterns, to the west of London, is one of the country’s most exclusive areas and is home to famous people including Tony Blair, Sophie Dahl, Jeremy Paxman and Jeremy Irons. It has regularly topped surveys identifying England’s most desirable areas.

Local campaigners are now braced to fight the new high-speed rail line. Steve Rodrick, chief officer of the Chilterns Conservation Board, said: “High-speed rail would change the nature of the area for ever. It will be a gash across the landscape with the loss of soil, trees and habitats that can never be replaced.

“These things are noisier than people think. We are not opposed to this because we are Nimbys, it is because we want to protect the tranquility of the Chilterns.”

Sir Terry Pratchett, the author who grew up in the area, said: “The country is already sufficiently endowed with railway services. We don’t need to be digging up the Chilterns to add another one. Bloody tin boxes going very, very fast don’t do anything for the countryside.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...mpaigners.html

That Pratchett quote is particularly pathetic and myopic.

[Richard_A]

Also, am I right in thinking that both Network Rail AND 'High Speed Two' have outline proposals on the table now, and that either could form the basis of future plans? Network Rail's plans did more clearly specify Liverpool City Region's inclusion.

(presuming it isn't kicked into the long grass after the election)

[Salif]

We are not opposed to this because we are Nimbys, it is because we want to protect the tranquility of the Chilterns.”

Erm......yes you are, that is what Nimbyism is all about

[TheFly]

Originally Posted by Richard_A

I'm actually more concerned about whether high speed rail will actually happen at all,

It may be delayed but saying not at all is like saying airplanes won't make it big.

HSR is the future and will happen.

How the hell Sheffield or Newcastle would be on a line and not Liverpool is beyond me.

However, if Sheffield is on because it is a straight ish line to Leeds/Newcastle then it is economics and Liverpool will get it's line in round 2!

Forget about Scotland..we are run by that country and Glasgow/Edinburgh are close enough, in London terms to add the line! Although from Manchester to Glasgow is all fields! So, personally Glasgow should be on the end of the Edinbrugh, east coast spur.

re the line route,,,,there is an excellent thread about that...Manchester will go down the M602..straight as an arrow right into the city centre...hardly anything to demolish...just retail parks (two-a-penny rubbish)...upto base of Beetham!

[TheFly]

i never get nimby's.

Your house was built in the this lovely area, and unless by their own fair hand on land owned for a millenia do they have any rights.

It aint about the scenery it's about their house prices and dinner parties.

It's called progress, if you don't like it move to Wales.

The whole country should be forrested but who complains!

[Richard_A]

Originally Posted by TheFly

It may be delayed but saying not at all is like saying airplanes won't make it big.

HSR is the future and will happen.

I think provincial cities that stand to benefit should start gearing up for the outright political and PR war that will be necessary to give any of these current proposals a chance of coming to fruition.

The home counties, epsecially places like the Chilterns, are very, very used to getting their own way. They expect to have easy access to nearby London, whilst benefitting from Green Belt restrictions on development in order to fully preserve small areas of moderately attractive countryside.

The effect of this is both to increase motorway congestion and more importantly, to put an impediment in the way of better integrating London with the rest of the country. The home counties enjoy relatively easy access to the economic, political and cultural heart of the nation as the towns here are essentially London satellites, with their backs fully turned to the rest of the country. It would do this region good to have to get used to more movement coming directly through here to and from the North. It would do them good to be reminded that it actually exists.

If this doesn't happen now, it could be yet another decade or two before the UK just draws up the plans again, let alone finishes the lines.

Chairman of the Chiltern Society John Taylor said: “We will fight him all the way to the House of Commons.

“It's not the job of an unelected civil servant to retire the Chilterns.”

Meanwhile the Chilterns Conservation Board would rather see the existing Chiltern Railway updated and made more efficient.

Information Officer Claire Forrest said: “The high speed line would have a devastating impact – wherever it goes in the Chilterns it will destroy some of the finest landscapes in the UK.

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/n..._inescapable_/

[Toadboy]

Round 2...bollocks to that, the country can't afford to cut an urban area, economy and seaport out of this scale out of it's future.

[TheFly]

Originally Posted by Martin S

This is how I think HS2 might be connected to Liverpool. I have shown the main route following the alignment of the M6 and using the existing Warrington Central line via Widnes to access central Liverpool, meeting the existing line at South Parkway.

This image intrigues me. It states WCML. Fair enough...but it spurs off to Manchester, twice before then...Wilmslow route and Stafford route.

So, Liverpool & Manchester have spurs now...so why not again for HSR?

[TheFly]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

Round 2...bollocks to that, the country can't afford to cut an urban area, economy and seaport out of this scale out of it's future.

it does send all the wrong messages!

The real answer is to make the end points more attractive.

So, for Liverpool, relocate enough Whitehall jobs to make the line economic!

A more powerful, spread of jobs helps everyone!