Liverpool and High Speed Two.

[Toadboy]

Are any rail lines 'economic'?

Spot on though, the economy needs beefing up, I'll take a government ministry, I'll take shipping lines and a growing port, I'll take a cruise terminal, I'll take an extended runway at Speke and international flights, etc.

It's vital that this isn't another tool of London restricting governance, organic economic development, global trading of our cities etc. though.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by TheFly

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?

Fly, That's just my interpretation of how the route will serve Liverpool actually by a spur off the line via Warrington rather than via Runcorn at present. I would expect Manchester to be served by a similar spur.

The difference though is that the WCML at present goes through Warrington with a station at Bank Quay. As I would expect a HS route to by-pass Warrington, I expect that the best way to serve this important market would be by making it a stop on the Liverpool spur.

You could, of course, have one spur each to serve Liverpool and Warrington but that would split the market and lead to a reduction in frequency as well as being more costly.

[Martin S]

Whichever government wins the next election, we are going to see cutbacks in public expenditure - that's because the whole country is up to its eyeballs in debt.

I'm not sure that the return of a Conservative government would necessarily mean any more cutbacks than Labour - simply because, when it comes to the nuts and bolts of public transport investment they have a better record than Labour even though they lean more to a private transport ideology.

As for the problem with the rail link going through the Chilterns, I think it is a case of the costs going to one group of people and the benefits to another. The M40 motorway cut through the Chilterns in the 1980s but directly benefited the local economy and so probably didn't get the opposition that HS2 would.

As with HS1 through Kent, the solution will probably be a lot of tunnels and cuttings to reduce noise and visual impact and even a four track railway has much less land take than a standard motorway.

[HollyBlack]

Originally Posted by TheFly

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?

If it is to be different for HSR contrasted with WCML, it is because of a need for spurs from the backbone not only from the South but also from the North.

That is provision of HS Scotland-Manchester and Scotland-Liverpool routes. I see Chat Moss as better than the Southern route via Warrington for lines to/from Scotland (more cheap land is available to build some very long and fast chords).
The London-Manchester line can best come off the HSR near Wilmslow.

Another good possibility is to build a tally new true HS line from Liverpool Airport to Manchester airport (presumably following the ship canal right of way).

Let's hope the Heathrow PRT is a success so it can be copied for JLA/LSP.

[TheFly]

Originally Posted by HollyBlack

If it is to be different for HSR contrasted with WCML, it is because of a need for spurs from the backbone not only from the South but also from the North.

That is provision of HS Scotland-Manchester and Scotland-Liverpool routes. I see Chat Moss as better than the Southern route via Warrington for lines to/from Scotland (more cheap land is available to build some very long and fast chords).
The London-Manchester line can best come off the HSR near Wilmslow.

Another good possibility is to build a tally new true HS line from Liverpool Airport to Manchester airport (presumably following the ship canal right of way).

Let's hope the Heathrow PRT is a success so it can be copied for JLA/LSP.

What price short term, PFI fiddled `cheapness'.

HSR is a massive 100 year investment. Essentially it should be future proofed and have almost nothing to do with short-term gain.

So, IF, Liverpool is not currently economic, ensure that in say 20 years (don't have a go), Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds is a HIGHLY likely new line and it slots into the existing infrastructure (say double decked terminal/flyover in Manchester already in place for the east/west line). Similar for the, at the moment uneconomic Manc-Glasgow/Liverpoo/Glasgow northern spur?

Die laughing if this is in the plan! FFS they have not sorted out London air transport after 50 years of fannying about....oh look, they sold the airports off and BAA gives MP free Heathrow passes so no MP votes for a new airport and they extend Heathrow to be now only half the runways of Amsterdam today!

[Splendidineogh]

Fly,

I'm sure a bluebottle such as yourself has some really interesting dog poo to go and land on somewhere on the streets of Manchester.

The people of Liverpool are entitled to feel anxious about this matter. It is very important. Your contributions are adding nothing except mischief.

In any case, I doubt very much that HSR2 is even going to happen. I do think that Liverpool people should be contacting their MPs and councillors right now, especially Louise Ellman who has been closely involved in the planning of HSR2.

But that said, I would be suprised if it happens. This country is horrendously in debt. No government that is being run by sane individuals will spend billions on this whilst the country is trillions of pounds in debt. The next government will be too preoccupied with shoring up our debt crisis and preventing a run on sterling. That's how serious things are. It is now a case of preventing a plunge in international confidence.

This is a rail enthusiast's dream. After all in such a small country, where it only take 2 hours to travel from northern cities to London, is it worth spending billions on this when there are more important things, like interest rates and sterling, to think about?

But do contact your MPs just in case.

[wiggleyleeds]

the trouble is, without a line it's not gonna become more economically active is it - , its a vicious circle. liverpool heavily underperforms relative to its size etc, and so if anything, it is places like liverpool that a HSR link would give greater economical growth, compared to places like leeds or manchester.

Its the same crappy arguments for london. its like err lets spend a shocking 10 billion on cross rail to gain an extra 20 mins travel across london, because london is so important. The reason london has such a disproportionate critical mass of business and growth is precisely because so much infrastructure investment gets ploughed into it. So their answer to this? Plough even more money into it. Its stupid and short sighted. Theyve just diverted huge housing infrastructure funds from the north east to greater london and the south east because there is more demand and shortage of housing there. Yes this is true but only because it has been engineered to be that way so. All the government would have to do is relocate 60% of government jobs to the regions, save shit loads of cash by doing this, whilst creating a need for people to be in other cities in the UK not just london. Such relocations would start up tertiary employment in all sectors, and dampen demand of housing in london. Apologies for going of an a tangent

[Dreamer]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLeigh

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.

I agree with the Sefton comment, its a complete joke to think Bootle is not part of the LCC area, the same for Broadgreen, Hale/Halewood, Kirkby etc etc

[Scarecrow]

I'm not a Liverpudlian. I'm A SEFTONIAN!!

Must be. I travel from Bootle to Southport every day. ...

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by wiggleyleeds

the trouble is, without a line it's not gonna become more economically active is it - , its a vicious circle. liverpool heavily underperforms relative to its size etc, and so if anything, it is places like liverpool that a HSR link would give greater economical growth, compared to places like leeds or manchester.

Its the same crappy arguments for london. its like err lets spend a shocking 10 billion on cross rail to gain an extra 20 mins travel across london, because london is so important. The reason london has such a disproportionate critical mass of business and growth is precisely because so much infrastructure investment gets ploughed into it. So their answer to this? Plough even more money into it. Its stupid and short sighted. Theyve just diverted huge housing infrastructure funds from the north east to greater london and the south east because there is more demand and shortage of housing there. Yes this is true but only because it has been engineered to be that way so. All the government would have to do is relocate 60% of government jobs to the regions, save shit loads of cash by doing this, whilst creating a need for people to be in other cities in the UK not just london. Such relocations would start up tertiary employment in all sectors, and dampen demand of housing in london. Apologies for going of an a tangent

It's the nature of national (and regional) decision making though to concentrate resources where they will have most effect in terms of encouraging growth, raising revenues and allowing tax rates to be kept low. It's not a particularly fair way of doing things, but it's a function of policy being driven by a very narrow band of voters who don't live in the north and don't live in cities.

Obviously the fairest thing for regional spending is to repatriate all of it (or most of it) to the natural economic regions and let them make their own choices (whether the people are willing to vest this power in these rather abstract entities is however open to question). But with national schemes like high speed rail the taxpayer (many if not most of whom will never directly benefit from the scheme) will want assurances that the scheme proposed is offering value for money. A local MP may lobby a minister, but the Treasury will always be able to trump any local concern by saying that they're acting in the national interest.

It's the constitution that's at fault.

[guenuk]

Anything that involves the Govt will follow the govt agenda and we all know their agenda in the North West of England has been Manchester-centric I expect to be seriously worried when the plans are revealed in March.

[TommyMogan]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

It's the nature of national (and regional) decision making though to concentrate resources where they will have most effect in terms of encouraging growth, raising revenues and allowing tax rates to be kept low.

I thought it was to get votes. Some desicions are clearly political rather than logical.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by TommyMogan

I thought it was to get votes. Some desicions are clearly political rather than logical.

Yes. The votes of swing voters. Who a largely affluent southern England living suburbanites who don't value things like public transport for the north because they will never use it. No one in Luton cares whether Liverpool, Manchester, both or neither are regenerated. What they do care about is schools, hospitals, jobs, crime and paying low taxes.

[JohnnyLeigh]

Labour Manifesto released today:

"Built in stages, the initial line will link London to Birmingham, Manchester, the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds, and then to the North and Scotland"
"By running through-trains from day one, cities including Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle and Liverpool will also be part of the initial network."

No line for Liverpool.
It seems the line is to go the much more expensive route of through Manchester than through the middle of both cities and connect that way.
I bet Liverpool will still dutifully return 5 Labour MPs.

[JohnnyLeigh]

Also in the Liverpool manifesto is a committment to support trams upgrades in the 'major cities'
Manchester, Nottingham, Birmingham, Leeds and Tyne & Wear.

No mention of Liverpool.

[TommyMogan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLeigh

Labour Manifesto released today:

"Built in stages, the initial line will link London to Birmingham, Manchester, the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds, and then to the North and Scotland"
"By running through-trains from day one, cities including Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle and Liverpool will also be part of the initial network."

No line for Liverpool.
It seems the line is to go the much more expensive route of through Manchester than through the middle of both cities and connect that way.
I bet Liverpool will still dutifully return 5 Labour MPs.

The route has not been finalized. Liverpool will use the WCML spur or via the 1830 Liverpool-Manchester line when peeling off the HSR2.

Liverpool does not have a tram system to upgrade. The DfT wants Liverpool to extend its existing metro. Which is better than trams.

I hope Liverpool return 5 Labour MPs.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLeigh

Also in the Liverpool manifesto is a committment to support trams upgrades in the 'major cities'
Manchester, Nottingham, Birmingham, Leeds and Tyne & Wear.

No mention of Liverpool.

Aka North West, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire & Humber, North East.

[eyeam]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLeigh

Also in the Liverpool manifesto is a committment to support trams upgrades in the 'major cities'
Manchester, Nottingham, Birmingham, Leeds and Tyne & Wear.

No mention of Liverpool.

Yet Gordon Brown has the cheek to come to Ellesmere Port to launch the fucking thing.

After the way they've treated our city since coming into office there's absolutely no way I would ever vote for them again.

[TommyMogan]

Originally Posted by eyeam

Yet Gordon Brown has the cheek to come to Ellesmere Port to launch the fucking thing.

After the way they've treated our city since coming into office there's absolutely no way I would ever vote for them again.

You must have amnesia. The city was a basket case before Blair/Brown came to power.

[TommyMogan]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

Are any rail lines 'economic'?

Yes. They create economic growth, so are economical -maybe not in ticket sales though. Overall, yes.