Liverpool and High Speed Two.

[OriK]

Originally Posted by Martin S

Interesting comment, Orik. I just read an anti-HS2 article in the December issue of Modern Railways. The author made the point that Spain is a country that is very well connected by high speed trains but whose economic performance in recent years has been pretty poor - therefore high speed trains do not lead to economic prosperity.

I suppose you could also argue that drinking sangria doesn't lead to economic prosperity as we don't know how properous or otherwise Spain would be if it didn't have high speed trains. However, France has had high speed rail since the early 80s and yet is continuing to develop its network so some economic advantage must be present.

It always depends on who interprets the facts :P

Spain has HS trains since 1992 and IMHO it helped leading economic prosperity to the cities that enjoyed that first line (Madrid-Puertollano-Ciudad Real-Córdoba-Sevilla) but economics are much more complicated than that :S.

I think that in the end, the key to make it a success is in how the local administrations deal with it taking advantage of that connection in their plans.

@the golden vision it wasn't a direct answer, only a contribution to the topic

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by Martin S

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

Sorry. Try this:

http://www.4nw.org.uk/downloads/docu...ed_2lowRes.pdf

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

Sorry. Try this:

http://www.4nw.org.uk/downloads/docu...ed_2lowRes.pdf

I think you mean this one Che:

http://www.appghsr.co.uk/upload/APPG...y%20Report.pdf

One interesting observation is that over the last 12 - 15 years the number of people using the London-Liverpool service has increased by 70%.

[golden66]

Originally Posted by Martin S

But doesn't Manchester's connectivity to London improve because of its proximity to its airport?

Yes Manchester has economically benefited from its proximity to its airport and it does increase connectivity to London, however, there comes a point as the connectivity becomes even quicker and easier from Manchester Airport to the dominant London pull economy it will no longer be an airport that primarily serves our region but will primarily serve the dominant London pull economy. HS rail will be that tipping point.

The inward international flows into Manchester Airport will increasingly prefer to bypass Manchester for the dominant London pull economy as access to it from the airport becomes quicker and easier. Furthermore, firms in our region with better access to the inputs and markets of the dominant London pull economy will help to decrease economic activity in our region.

The inward international flows into the dominant London pull economy will not bypass it by preferring our weaker region even if connectivity to it is quicker and easier. Furthermore, firms in the dominant pull economy will find it much easier to supply poorer regions which it has quick and easy access to and this will harm the industrialisation prospects of the poorer region.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by golden66

Yes Manchester has economically benefited from its proximity to its airport and it does increase connectivity to London, however, there comes a point as the connectivity becomes even quicker and easier from Manchester Airport to the dominant London pull economy it will no longer be an airport that primarily serves our region but will primarily serve the dominant London pull economy. HS rail will be that tipping point.

The inward international flows into Manchester Airport will increasingly prefer to bypass Manchester for the dominant London pull economy as access to it from the airport becomes quicker and easier. Furthermore, firms in our region with better access to the inputs and markets of the dominant London pull economy will help to decrease economic activity in our region.

The inward international flows into the dominant London pull economy will not bypass it by preferring our weaker region even if connectivity to it is quicker and easier. Furthermore, firms in the dominant pull economy will find it much easier to supply poorer regions which it has quick and easy access to and this will harm the industrialisation prospects of the poorer region.

I think that the issue of Manchester Airport and its connections to HS2 is a subject in itself but the London forummers are never anything other than scathing of the idea that Manchester could become their fourth airport.

The idea that Manchester Airport would, at some time in the future, serve London better than its own region is a bit far-fetched. HS2 is pretty fast but even that will take an hour to get to central London as opposed to twenty minutes to central Manchester and Londoners are only half an hour away from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Journey time isn't the only issue, how about cost? Do you really think that Euston to Manchester Airport would ever be comparable to Paddington to Heathrow or Victoria to Gatwick?

Actually, if you look at that parliamentary report that I just posted a link to, you will see that the issue of London's economic dominance was discussed at some length. There are arguments for and against and few people speak with the certainty that you do.

One MP made the comment that development costs in London are extremely high in comparison with other cities and developers would welcome HS2 due to the ability to develop in these cities whilst retaining very good access to central London.

No doubt the cultural highlight of the 90s was Richard and Judy's show from the Albert Dock but they eventually moved down to London - not because of any high speed train development but quite the reverse. Top stars and other celebrities were not prepared to travel up to Liverpool to appear on the show. Now, had we had HS2, that problem would have been resolved, Richard and Judy could have stayed at the Albert Dock and the world would be a happier place.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Martin S

I say the Manchester Regional Capital thing is boring because it intrudes into every thread where there is some issue between the two cities and it is something that can't be resolved. Also, I'm not convinced that government is so determined to do down our part of the world - well no more than any other part of non-London Britain. After all, three of the biggest transport projects in Britain are in progress or about to start in our area - City Line electrification, the Mersey Gateway Bridge and the Liverpool 2 post-panamax development.

The whole reason that I revived this thread was to point out that there is a possibility that Phase 2 of HS2 will have a number of positives for the Liverpool City Region and, if so, we as Liverpool forummers should take an interest in it.

But the fact of life is, Martin, that the 'Manchester Regional Capital' thing is almost always a factor, if not the factor, whenever there's any issue between the two cities. And for the most part, it cannot ever be resolved, so long as there's the general recognition, on Whitehall & Westminster's part, of the concept of Liverpool as part of a North West province with its capital/focus being Manchester.

The Government are not deliberately doing down 'our part of the world', but at the same time, do not give a flying fuck about it either. Quite simply, Liverpool's not important enough, in London's view of the world, to want to conciously sabotage. Whitehall (and so, the Government) split the country into three parts; London, regional capitals and other places. We're in the third category, along with Glossop, Minehead and Darlington. Ultimately, HS2 will have no net positives for the Liverpool City Region and all that's to play for is damage limitation. But yes, we should take and interest in it. It's a potentially dangerous project that may well kill off Liverpool as a proper city once and for all and cement its place as just some quirky town in Manchester-focused North West-land.

Unfortunatley, it does seem some Liverpolitans are starting to accept this concept of playing a supporting commuter town role for Manchester and want to make the best of it. Personally, I won't want any part in the violation of Liverpool's corpse and will be leaving, if this scenario comes to pass.

[golden66]

Martin S your argument becomes weaker.

Three of London's airports can take up to an hour to reach central London by rail. London Luton 30 to 60 mins.,London Stanstead 45 to 60 mins.,London Southhend 55 to 65 mins. HS rail from Manchester Airport to London less than 60 mins;Birmingham Airport to London less than 40 mins.

The cost is largely irrelevant. It is estimated a standard fare from Manchester to London on HS rail will be about £40 at todays prices.

The personal views of forummers carry no weight without evidence.

Oh dear! you are now really scraping the bottom of the barrel with your Richard and Judy comment. Are you seriously saying the shows future solely depended on Liverpool being 24 minutes closer to London? The truth is the London centered celebs didn't want to come up to Liverpool at all and I'm sure the Madeleys were desperate to enter into the London social whirl.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Gareth

But the fact of life is, Martin, that the 'Manchester Regional Capital' thing is almost always a factor, if not the factor, whenever there's any issue between the two cities. And for the most part, it cannot ever be resolved, so long as there's the general recognition, on Whitehall & Westminster's part, of the concept of Liverpool as part of a North West province with its capital/focus being Manchester.

The Government are not deliberately doing down 'our part of the world', but at the same time, do not give a flying fuck about it either. Quite simply, Liverpool's not important enough, in London's view of the world, to want to conciously sabotage. Whitehall (and so, the Government) split the country into three parts; London, regional capitals and other places. We're in the third category, along with Glossop, Minehead and Darlington. Ultimately, HS2 will have no net positives for the Liverpool City Region and all that's to play for is damage limitation. But yes, we should take and interest in it. It's a potentially dangerous project that may well kill off Liverpool as a proper city once and for all and cement its place as just some quirky town in Manchester-focused North West-land.

Unfortunatley, it does seem some Liverpolitans are starting to accept this concept of playing a supporting commuter town role for Manchester and want to make the best of it. Personally, I won't want any part in the violation of Liverpool's corpse and will be leaving, if this scenario comes to pass.

Gareth, you'll have to control this boundless optimism!

I guess that if I wasn't so dim I would be offended by that last paragraph as it might apply to me. You should ask Cheguevara about that one. He once accused me of 'wanting Liverpool to have the independence and prestige of Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds'. He wasn't too impressed when I told him that he could stick the prestige of Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds as Liverpool was more interested in New York, London and Paris.

What I am trying to get over here is not that we will benefit from a city centre station in Manchester but that there is the possibility of an HS2 alignment that will allow the development of a good HS2 connection to Liverpool.

I don't see us getting a captive route to a new HS2 station in central Liverpool - however, if we get a reasonable alignment then there is everything to play for.

Manchester is the bigger city, it has far greater economic clout than Liverpool and will, therefore, be the priority for an HS2 connection. That is to be expected and should not be seen as defeatism. It is, of course, wonderful for Manchester to have Oldham, Accrington and Stockport in such close proximity and we can only dream of that sort of thing.

The problem for us comes about when this economic clout results in such a distorted HS2 alignment that Liverpool can only be added as an afterthought. That may be the case and don't expect me to have too much enthusiasm for HS2 if that is how it turns out.

However, we still don't know just what alignment has been chosen and, until it is, I think that Liverpool should take a great interest.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by golden66

Martin S your argument becomes weaker.

Three of London's airports can take up to an hour to reach central London by rail. London Luton 30 to 60 mins.,London Stanstead 45 to 60 mins.,London Southhend 55 to 65 mins. HS rail from Manchester Airport to London less than 60 mins;Birmingham Airport to London less than 40 mins.

The cost is largely irrelevant. It is estimated a standard fare from Manchester to London on HS rail will be about £40 at todays prices.

The personal views of forummers carry no weight without evidence.

Oh dear! you are now really scraping the bottom of the barrel with your Richard and Judy comment. Are you seriously saying the shows future solely depended on Liverpool being 24 minutes closer to London? The truth is the London centered celebs didn't want to come up to Liverpool at all and I'm sure the Madeleys were desperate to enter into the London social whirl.

Golden, I hope this doesn't make my argument even weaker but some people have suggested that Heathrow, Gatwick and London City could also be counted as London airports.

£40 Manchester to London at 250mph? Was that prediction made by the same person who predicted an end to Mersey Tunnel tolls and free electricity when generated by nuclear power?

I don't want to go on too long about the departure of Richard and Judy as the cultural tragedy is still raw in this city, however most celebrities are London centred and don't want to travel too far from that 'social whirl'.

[Martin S]

One thing that we haven't really touched on in this discussion is the opportunities for freight. That is freight from the Port of Liverpool and from manufacturing industry within the City Region.

It is not so much that HS2 itself could be used for freight. Freight trains tend to have heavy axle loads and are not suited to high speed running so there would be a limited scope for running freight on the new route.

The great benefit would accrue by diverting passenger trains off the existing West Coast Main Line and, thereby making available far more paths for freight trains. That benefit would accrue even with the worst East of Stoke alignment.

[Toadboy]

There's clear need to vastly increase rail capacity to and from the port.

I also agree with Gareth in that Liverpool is artificially hindered by state planning that has 2 large, distinct city's in a government region. The argument from Liverpool has to be focused on the city, West Cheshire and North Wales to demonstrate the mass and benefit. It really shouldn't be either or, but more.

The idea that a large deep water port, at the heart of a city region of 2 million people, on an island that relies on imported goods from the Far East, with huge potential to grow internationally, is viewed as secondary is short sighted to say the least. As others have put, this is all about London and a single city state. Too few people are benefitting by driving wealth and real prosperity in to their hands by complicit governments.

Hasn't the economic collapse of the west due to the western elites globalism taught us anything about the dangers of restricting economic activity and wealth from the masses?

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

There's clear need to vastly increase rail capacity to and from the port.

I also agree with Gareth in that Liverpool is artificially hindered by state planning that has 2 large, distinct city's in a government region. The argument from Liverpool has to be focused on the city, West Cheshire and North Wales to demonstrate the mass and benefit. It really shouldn't be either or, but more.

The idea that a large deep water port, at the heart of a city region of 2 million people, on an island that relies on imported goods from the Far East, with huge potential to grow internationally, is viewed as secondary is short sighted to say the least. As others have put, this is all about London and a single city state. Too few people are benefitting by driving wealth and real prosperity in to their hands by complicit governments.

Hasn't the economic collapse of the west due to the western elites globalism taught us anything about the dangers of restricting economic activity and wealth from the masses?

'A huge potential to grow ' and what ? Let me enlighten you. The Port of Liverpool grew by 200% between 1992 and 2007, what were the benefits ? I'll spell this out for the hard of understanding : THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL IS NOT GOING TO CREATE THE FUTURE EMPLOYMENT GROWTH TO SUSTAIN THIS REGION !

[Toadboy]

I was thinking more generally than just port throughput. Trade is the key, import/export, brokerages, warehousing, finishing, distribution. Service sector banking, insurance, sales etc. The knowledge and bio economies.

Many of these could be anywhere but for a lot the port and direct trading links are a huge advantage.

Mass employment is the problem though, that goes for the whole country though. The more we automate the less we need people but people aren't going away. That's a whole different subject though.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

I was thinking more generally than just port throughput. Trade is the key, import/export, brokerages, warehousing, finishing, distribution. Service sector banking, insurance, sales etc. The knowledge and bio economies.

Many of these could be anywhere but for a lot the port and direct trading links are a huge advantage.

Mass employment is the problem though, that goes for the whole country though. The more we automate the less we need people but people aren't going away. That's a whole different subject though.

This is the problem,ports are no longer labour intensive but also port related industries are generally low skilled. Teesport (Middlesbrough) is the largest port in Britain and one of the poorest areas in the UK. To add, Teesport not only handles double Liverpool's volumes but also more ships, with the auxiliary services associated,ship repair, haulage etc.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by Martin S

Gareth, you'll have to control this boundless optimism!

I guess that if I wasn't so dim I would be offended by that last paragraph as it might apply to me. You should ask Cheguevara about that one. He once accused me of 'wanting Liverpool to have the independence and prestige of Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds'. He wasn't too impressed when I told him that he could stick the prestige of Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds as Liverpool was more interested in New York, London and Paris.

What I am trying to get over here is not that we will benefit from a city centre station in Manchester but that there is the possibility of an HS2 alignment that will allow the development of a good HS2 connection to Liverpool.

I don't see us getting a captive route to a new HS2 station in central Liverpool - however, if we get a reasonable alignment then there is everything to play for.

Manchester is the bigger city, it has far greater economic clout than Liverpool and will, therefore, be the priority for an HS2 connection. That is to be expected and should not be seen as defeatism. It is, of course, wonderful for Manchester to have Oldham, Accrington and Stockport in such close proximity and we can only dream of that sort of thing.

The problem for us comes about when this economic clout results in such a distorted HS2 alignment that Liverpool can only be added as an afterthought. That may be the case and don't expect me to have too much enthusiasm for HS2 if that is how it turns out.

However, we still don't know just what alignment has been chosen and, until it is, I think that Liverpool should take a great interest.

If I remember rightly I appreciated your spirited if misplaced optimism; if Liverpool does aspire to be as wealthy and significant as Paris, the road to that destination still requires it to pass by Leeds.

If you were to ask me, I'd say the effect of the 'regional capital thing' is overstated compared to the economic case you make; that Manchester sits at the heart of a bigger and more productive agglomeration and so will take precedence in investment terms. The regional development agencies and the regional government offices don't even exist any more, so if Manchester could ever have been considered a formal 'capital' that position is meaningless now. If it ever influenced major spending decisions it does so no longer.

Unlike Gareth I think the route chosen will be west of Stoke. The leaks that people have heard from members of the HS2 team seem to point to a connection to the WCML at Crewe and this requires a western alignment. The best case scenario for Liverpool at the moment would be a spur reaching the southern extremities of Runcorn and I don't think this is unrealistic to expect. If it isn't included in the proposed route it's also something that the Merseyside authorities and MPs could campaign upon, as it will be a relatively cheap addition to the overall scheme and being a branch not cause delays to services travelling further north.

[golden66]

Martin S are you now saying Luton,Stanstead and Southend aren't London airports?

The travel cost is provided by London mindset pro HS railers like yourself.

Yes the Madeley's comment could only be made by someone whose argument is floundering.

Well said Gareth and Toadboy your on the right tracks, if we accept the London led agenda we are finished. There would be huge economic prospects for Liverpool and the region if the Atlantic Gateway got full government support and backing, the Liverpool and Manchester city regions were combined as a united and fully integrated economic entity maximising all available assets, the further expansion and improved connectivity of the city region into North Wales, the development of HS rail connectivity between the regions and the abandonment of HS rail from the regions to London and maximum political devolution to the regions.

[LeedsLad]

Some interesting comments here. I have to say though that if Leeds wasn't being connected via HS2 I'd still as a poor second alternative want York, Bradford or Sheffield to be connected so as to benefit from connecting services.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

'The largest cities might have limited gains (you said a HSR link would finish Manchester off) but this is not the case for intermediate cities, which MIGHT see economic activties being drained away and suffer an overall negative impact" that applies to cities ON the line, i would assume the negative effect would be even more deleterious to cities like Liverpool which won't be on it.

You have to treat statistics with a degree of circumspection depending on who has complied them and for what reason. The figures for overnight stays and total visits: A fall for overnight stays from 74% to 46% , no figure is given for the total increase but just say it was 50% and it went up from 1m to 1.5m,46% of 1.5m is 690.000 overnight stays to 740,000. Even given a much lower increase of visitors any potential fall in revenues from overnight stays would probably be offset by the the extra spend from the daytripper.

With corrrections; also there was nothing Freudian in 'fiinish Manchester off' of course I meant to repeat 'kill off.' Specsavers

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

If I remember rightly I appreciated your spirited if misplaced optimism; if Liverpool does aspire to be as wealthy and significant as Paris, the road to that destination still requires it to pass by Leeds.

If you were to ask me, I'd say the effect of the 'regional capital thing' is overstated compared to the economic case you make; that Manchester sits at the heart of a bigger and more productive agglomeration and so will take precedence in investment terms. The regional development agencies and the regional government offices don't even exist any more, so if Manchester could ever have been considered a formal 'capital' that position is meaningless now. If it ever influenced major spending decisions it does so no longer.

Unlike Gareth I think the route chosen will be west of Stoke. The leaks that people have heard from members of the HS2 team seem to point to a connection to the WCML at Crewe and this requires a western alignment. The best case scenario for Liverpool at the moment would be a spur reaching the southern extremities of Runcorn and I don't think this is unrealistic to expect. If it isn't included in the proposed route it's also something that the Merseyside authorities and MPs could campaign upon, as it will be a relatively cheap addition to the overall scheme and being a branch not cause delays to services travelling further north.

It's a bit disturbing when you start agreeing with the Manchester forummers more than some of the Liverpool ones. Reminds me of that time I started growing hair on my forehead and howling at the moon.

I do agree that too much is made of this regional capital idea.

As regards the alignment, it is similar to what I suggested a few days ago. However, if HS2 gets to Crewe wouldn't it make more sense for it to continue northwards roughly following the existing WCML alignment with the Liverpool connection being made in the area of Weaver Junction? Then it could continue on to Scotland.

That would mean a bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal in the Warrington area but seems a more obvious alignment than one that goes east from Crewe to Davenport Green and then goes west again requiring a tunnel under Altrincham before rejoining the WCML in the Wigan area.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by golden66

Martin S are you now saying Luton,Stanstead and Southend aren't London airports?

I agree that Luton, Stansted and Southend are London airports - just seem to have forgotten the significance of that to whether or not Liverpool gets an HS2 connection.