Liverpool and High Speed Two.

[Babaloo]

Since HSR north of London is essentially a fantasy given the country's lack of money and against the backdrop of the amount of tax payers money that has already been spent on upgrading the WCML and the ECML, it's clear to me that should HSR2 ever see the light of day then it will pass straight through Liverpool en route to Dublin. High speed electric trains will connect Liverpool with Manchester, Leeds and Hull and fast trains from Manchester can join the Paris to Dublin HSR not far from where they join the WCML now. Clearly a win - win scenario for all concerned.

Let's take the long view. And so energy efficient, too.

[BeeGee]

Tunnel or Bridge?

[Howie_P]

Plans for electrification of Liverpool to Manchester rail line may be axed as part of Tory-Lib Dem government cuts
Jun 16 2010 by Gemma Jaleel, Liverpool Daily Post

PLANS to electrify the rail link between Liverpool and Manchester may be shelved after the Government revealed “problems” with spending.

The new coalition appeared to indicate Labour’s £1bn plans for electrification of the UK’s railway system, including lines in the North West, may not go ahead.

Louise Ellman, Riverside MP, and chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, last night said she was appalled by the position the new government had taken, after the news emerged during question time in the Lords.

Earl Attlee, for ministers, said there were “problems” about spending money on electrifying lines, given the state of the public finances.

He added: “We are committed to High Speed 2, but you will understand the problems about expenditure on electrification in the current economic climate.”

The coalition did, however, express “support” for “further electrification of the rail network”.

Lord Attlee said the Government was seeking to implement transport savings of £682m in 2010/11.

He said these would include “£112m from direct departmental spend, £100m from Network Rail, £309m from local government grants, a proposed reduction of £108m from the Transport for London grant, and the deferral of £54m from lower priority schemes”.

Lord Adonis, who was transport secretary until the coalition took power, had set out £1bn plans last year for electrifying lines between Liverpool and Manchester and London and Swansea.

Survey work has already started on the Liverpool-Manchester scheme, and electrification of the line would mean a travelling time of 30 minutes between Liverpool and Manchester, with more regular services and fewer breakdowns.

The £530m “Northern Hub” project to remove bottlenecks around Merseyside and Manchester is also under threat.

The idea is to boost train numbers by 40% and the scheme would also provide Liverpool with its first direct link with Bradford and Halifax, and slash journeys to Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle by 40 minutes.

Continues >>

[Mostly Lurking]

Cancel this project and it does not save even £1. It is not how it is being funded.

In my opinion, it all now depends on what happens with Thameslink - because that is where the 'new' trains would be coming from.

[Babaloo]

When I was in London a few weeks back, I travelled from London Bridge to Charing Cross and it looked as though a few of properties in the relevant area (the bottleneck just north of the station) where in the process of being demolished - although it could have been about something else entirely!

[Martin S]

Probably Borough Viaduct works for Thameslink Babs. I worked on design development for the project in the late 90s and our section was from Blackfriars to London Bridge.

The existing line is to be quadrupled with a new viaduct but the problem is that it runs through the historic Borough Market area. A lot of films are made in that area - especially Park Street (a Georgian cul-de-sac), the market itself and the Globe pub, which features in Bridget Jones Diary, so we had Helena Bonham-Carter and others opposing the plans although the viaduct was made as narrow as possible to minimise the footprint.

[Martin S]

About time this thread was revived. We aren't showing as much interest as many other cities but what is clear is that, like it or not, it will have a major impact on our city and region.

The decision on the routing of Phase 2 of HS2 is to be announced imminently - by the end of this month according to some reports - and though we are over twenty years away from the first trains running on this section, it will make a difference from the time of the announcement.

Phase 1 of HS2 was announced earlier this year. It is a route from London (Euston) up to Lichfield with a branch off to serve a new station at Birmingham Curzon Street.

Phase 2 will consist of two branches from Lichfield, one to Manchester and the other to Leeds.

Phase 3, to be announced later on, will take one of those branches northwards to serve Glasgow and Edinburgh.

HS2 itself is a high speed rail line built to allow trains to run at speeds up to 400kph (250mph). (HS1 is the line from London St Pancras to the Channel Tunnel, which is already open).

Two types of train will be run on HS2 - 'captive' and 'classic compatible'. The former trains will only run on the dedicated high speed line and will, because of their length (400m) and loading gauge be unable to run on 'classic' railways. The latter, will be able to run on both high speed and classic lines. It is the latter type that we are likely to see at Liverpool.
.
There are lots of issues surrounding HS2 - political, environmental, economic and technical and a lot of these have been discussed on the Transport and Environment section. What really concerns us in Liverpool is how well our city will be served by the project.

What we do know is that Liverpool will not be served by a captive route - at least not as part of Phase Two. The reason for that is a combination of the travel demand from the city and the technical difficulty of constructing a 400m long station in the city centre.

What matters is the distance that classic compatible trains have to travel from Lime Street to access the new line. That distance will determine the journey time differential between Liverpool and other cities at similar distances from London such as Leeds and Manchester.

Earlier this year, a proposal was released via the Department for Transport that had Liverpool served all the way from Lichfield on the existing West Coast Main Line. If that were the case, Liverpool would have no benefit at all from Phase Two and, in some ways, it would be worse than the existing service as the classic compatible trains would not be capable of tilting on the classic lines and therefore run at lower speeds (although overall London journey time would be reduced due to Phase One).

More recently, it has been hinted that Liverpool will be better served by HS2 but, although, a connecting point at Crewe has been mentioned (including recently by Doug Oakervee, the Project Manager at a meeting in Manchester), we still don't know too much about the proposed alignment.

What we do know is that there are certain fixed points on the route. One is Lichfield, the termination point of Phase One, another is Manchester City Centre, which will be served by a captive route. Another is the route north to Scotland, which will need to join up with the classic WCML / M6 corridor north of Preston to save massive engineering works (if, of course, Phase 3 will be via the West Coast).

From Liverpool's point of view, one critical point will be just how HS2 gets past Stoke. A west of Stoke route will shift the whole alignment westwards and, therefore, serve Liverpool better. An east of Stoke route is almost a direct line to Manchester but one which is likely to be much more expensive and environmentally damaging.

Another point is just how the line is proposed to go northwards (again assuming a west coast Phase 3). A tunnel beneath the Altrincham area has been suggested and, whilst this would be a very bad alignment for Liverpool, a route further west would face the barrier of the Manchester Ship Canal.

Most is speculation at the moment - but in a few weeks it is going to become a major talking point.

[Cherguevara]

This report by the all party parliamentary group for high speed rail might be relevant to this thread. It sets out the arguments for better connections than Lichfield.

And this is the report for the campaign for rail in the north west that explains the benefits felt throughout different areas of the region under different scenarios.

[design_man]

Terribly disappointing campaign by Liverpool on this, although I suppose they did at least flag it in their city deal document. The pig-ignorant modellers have been left in pig-ignorance, however, which is frustrating. Crewe has been touted as best possible (for Liverpool) connection point for quite a long time, and it would have taken a huge amount of campaigning to get any better than that. It's now far to late to influence.

[Gareth]

Martin, until the finalised route of HS2 is decided, there's not much more to say than, at least personally, hasn't already been said, time and time again. But hey, for old times sake...

HS2, unless radically altered, is not good for Liverpool. Anyone trying to spin it as such is either a fool or a liar. It's all about damage limitation, so far as Liverpool's concerned. All that's up for contest is how large Liverpool's handicap in comparision to Manchester (and to some extend, Leeds) will be. The whole project is ideologically driven. We apparently need dedicated, captive France-style high speed lines purely because other countries have it and it's deemed necessary for a developed (and even more so 'European') country, regardless of local needs or conditions. It's also an EU project for a continent-wide network. That's why, no matter your logic, Martin, over the route going west of Stoke, it will go east, despite the higher costs and engineering hurdles, in order to most serve the administrative centre of the UK and EU region designated as UKD. Even in times of recession, money's no object when the project is ideologically driven. It is above budgets and above sanity or common sense.

Unless Liverpool gets a compromise that's drastically better than the provisional 'Lichfield' plan, it serves no interest for us that it happens at all and the city should do whatever it possibly can, legally, to slow down and frustrate the project, possibly working with other councils that are opposed to it. Of course, none of the city region councils officially oppose the project or seemingly have anything to say either way on it. Add to this that the daft Chamber Of Commerce actually support it, then one can appreciate what we're up against.

And before Kurt arrives and turns this into a boring Liverpool v Manchester 'clash of the egos' thing, I'll put in a reassurance clause that it isn't some irrational hate of Manchester or Mancunians and thus not wanting them to have shiny high speed trains because of hatred. Quite simply, it's just not in Liverpool's civic interest for this to happen. And if Liverpool's to be executed at the alter for this rather bizarre project, I for one don't want us to just go meekly to the chopping block without a fuss.

[jets9]

Thank you Martin for your welcome precis on HS2, some of the history and maneuverings.

This is wholly and emphatically a political sum game at this point.
Maybe Iam going to make an unfair criticism now, but the eerie silence around what can't even be described as a Liverpool (region) campaign is for me deeply disheartening. Where is the natural cross party support group?

I despair at the quality of politicians and political leadership in this city. And as a concerned voter, I want to crawl all over the diary of Joe Anderson and find out what he has done, what he is doing and what he proposes to do to bring about the best possible result for the city.'

If it's a case of treading softly and lobbying quietly (from him) which in turn achieves a good result, then I will praise him. But if that isn't the case (or the outcome) then I will wish him banished to political hades. Simple as. In this case the political and economic stakes are just too high.

[GLCBanana]

Martin, that was a good summary of the issues except you missed one point which I believe is germane: correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the classic compatible trains aren't capable of running as fast on the high speed line as the captives? So any city that is served by classic compatibles isn't just disadvantaged because part of the route is along the existing track, but also because the leg of the journey along the new HS rail won't be as fast as the captive trains running along the same stretch?

Is that right??

[tomo90]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

This report by the all party parliamentary group for high speed rail might be relevant to this thread. It sets out the arguments for better connections than Lichfield.

And this is the report for the campaign for rail in the north west that explains the benefits felt throughout different areas of the region under different scenarios.

I have just read the second one and it has changed my mind. I dont think it will be good for Liverpool at all after reading that. Its all about Manchester for the North West with possible extensions to Liverpool and Preston. I understand Manchester will get a better service because:

1] It is more central in the region.
2] It has a bigger economy.
3] It has more demand due to population.

However, as a resident in Liverpool I think it would be disastrous for the city to be put at a disadvantage this way.

Like Gareth said, before Kurt comes on, this is not about any hatred, its about wanting the best outcome for your city and the current proposals are not in the interests of the North West as a whole but Manchester and Manchester only.

Again, I just want to say that I know Manchester will receive a better service from HS2 but there is nothing currently that would make me think that Liverpool would benefit at all and that is wrong.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by tomo90

1] It is more central in the region.
2] It has a bigger economy.
3] It has more demand due to population.

Sorry, tomo; points 2 and 3, true, but bear in mind that London's a much greater economy and has a much larger population than Manchester (far more so than Manchester is larger than Liverpool) so we can make the argument not to bother with HS2 at all, because London makes the rest of the UK irrelevent.

Number 1 has to be challenged though. For a start, the region you speak of is artificial in pretty much every sense bar Whitehall's wallmaps. Also, Manchester is nowhere near in the middle of it. It's also imperitive to point out that Liverpool is not peripheral and out on a limb, as we get told as an excuse to cut us out of national infrastructure. That assertion must always be challenged. No one says New York is out on a limb, or Vancouver...

[tomo90]

Originally Posted by Gareth

Sorry, tomo; points 2 and 3, true, but bear in mind that London's a much greater economy and has a much larger population than Manchester (far more so than Manchester is larger than Liverpool) so we can make the argument not to bother with HS2 at all, because London makes the rest of the UK irrelevent.

Number 1 has to be challenged though. For a start, the region you speak of is artificial in pretty much every sense bar Whitehall's wallmaps. Also, Manchester is nowhere near in the middle of it. It's also imperitive to point out that Liverpool is not peripheral and out on a limb, as we get told as an excuse to cut us out of national infrastructure. That assertion must always be challenged. No one says New York is out on a limb, or Vancouver...

Generally the Manchester region has around 500-700,000 people ahead of us which I personally think is enough difference to support my point.

Economy wise, I just mean that many business people in London will have more reason to travel to Manchester than to Liverpool. Combined with the airport which is the biggest in the North and Manchester apparently receives more visits per year than Liverpool.

[b4mmy]

It's a big ask, everyone is after it. I was in a meeting with a Council member in Stoke-on-Trent the other day and even they want a stop.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by tomo90

Generally the Manchester region has around 500-700,000 people ahead of us which I personally think is enough difference to support my point.

Economy wise, I just mean that many business people in London will have more reason to travel to Manchester than to Liverpool. Combined with the airport which is the biggest in the North and Manchester apparently receives more visits per year than Liverpool.

It was point 1 I was taking issue with, though points 2 & 3 needed to be put into context.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by b4mmy

It's a big ask, everyone is after it. I was in a meeting with a Council member in Stoke-on-Trent the other day and even they want a stop.

And this is the thinking, isn't it? Manchester - big and important, thus, high speed link a no brainer. Liverpool, small and unimportant, like Stoke. If Liverpool gets a decent link, than Stoke, Crew, Sandbach et all will want one.

Sometimes, I really do think UDI would be the best solution.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

This report by the all party parliamentary group for high speed rail might be relevant to this thread. It sets out the arguments for better connections than Lichfield.

And this is the report for the campaign for rail in the north west that explains the benefits felt throughout different areas of the region under different scenarios.

Thanks for posting that Che. Only you've posted the NWBLT report twice.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by design_man

Terribly disappointing campaign by Liverpool on this, although I suppose they did at least flag it in their city deal document. The pig-ignorant modellers have been left in pig-ignorance, however, which is frustrating. Crewe has been touted as best possible (for Liverpool) connection point for quite a long time, and it would have taken a huge amount of campaigning to get any better than that. It's now far to late to influence.

I agree that this has been a very disappointing campaign but I think that the reason for that has been the emphasis on Manchester and, if it came to a straight battle between our two cities, then Manchester would win due to the size of the agglomeration surrounding it.

As I see it, the most important issue at this time is the alignment. If you draw a straight line from Lichfield to Liverpool, then you find that Crewe is almost exactly at its mid-point. So, I have no problem with the line going to Crewe - but it needs to be extended at least as far as Weaver Junction and better to Runcorn and the Ethelfleda Bridge. Such an extension, over the flat Cheshire Plain and, therefore, unlikely to require any expensive tunnels or bridges would be very cheap
compared to some sections of the route.

The opportunity that seems to present itself here is that a good Liverpool service can be provided that is not at the expense of Manchester. OK this may be wishful thinking and we have to await the publication of the detailed alignment but I am sure that there is still plenty of time to influence what gets built and when.