HS2 Cuts: A Second Chance for Liverpool

Martin Sloman

As we wave goodbye (at least for now) to any ideas of HS2 reaching the north, a deafening chorus of betrayal is drowning out attempts to assess the project’s worth more rationally. Yet for all that, there is an inconvenient truth displayed every time a BBC journalist puts a microphone in front of the general public - the existence of a clear disconnect between the project’s advocates and your average paying train passenger. Lord Adonis may cry foul but many in the north have never been convinced of the value of HS2. In this article, Martin Sloman, a director at influential lobby group, 20 Miles More, considers the matter from Liverpool’s perspective. He asks the question, is the HS2 re-set a golden opportunity - a second chance at creating new transport infrastructure that works for our city?

---

And so there it is. HS2 beyond Birmingham has gone the way of the Dodo. It is no more. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-railway.

Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak’s much trailed announcement at the Conservative Party Conference to hack back the UK’s largest public transport project represents not just a big throw of the political dice, but a huge scaling back of HS2’s ambitions. Unless you believe a Starmer-led Labour government will revive the scheme (don’t bank on it), the line will no longer extend to Manchester, instead terminating at Birmingham, the place that likes to call itself ‘the second city’. Brum’s claims have been bolstered now. This news is seen almost universally amongst the commentariat as a body blow to the much-vaunted ‘Levelling Up’ strategy, but what does it mean for Liverpool and our city region? Should we see it less as a disaster for the north and more as a second chance to get our city’s transport infrastructure right?

Liverpool came late to the HS2 debate. It was only after the Phase 2 proposal was revealed in January 2013 that we began to realise how the project would affect us. By then, the route was set in stone, and it didn’t look good. The new line was designed as if Liverpool didn’t exist. There would be stations at Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport, a lengthy tunnel into Manchester city centre and a link to the north via Wigan. Liverpool would be lucky to get new, plastic platform seating.

Under the HS2 plan, its high speed trains would run from Liverpool to London but would first need to traverse almost 40 miles of Victorian railways at slower speeds before accessing new, gleaming track south of Crewe. The Liverpool service would be limited to the shorter 200m ‘classic compatible’ trains with half the seats and would run two services per hour with a running time to London of one hour and 34 minutes. Meanwhile, Manchester would receive the gold-plated service - three 400m double-length ‘captive’ trains per hour, speeding to the capital in one hour and 8 minutes – three times Liverpool’s capacity and 28% faster – the end of historic parity in connections to the south.

The lack of high-speed infrastructure to serve Liverpool would prevent the release of capacity on our existing local network, which was supposed to be one of the selling points of HS2. This would severely limit the development of new passenger and freight services and ran contrary to the recommendations of ‘Rebalancing Britain: Policy or Slogan?’ – the Heseltine / Leahy report of 2011 which stated:

‘Government should amend the currently proposed High Speed 2 route, so it connects to both Manchester and Liverpool directly. In the same time frame and to the same standard, Government should commit to assuring Liverpool’s historic parity with Manchester for travel time to London and thereby avoid harmful competitive disadvantage to Liverpool in attracting inward investment’.

That harmful competitive disadvantage was confirmed by accounting giants KPMG who produced their report – HS2 Regional Economic Impacts on behalf of HS2 in 2013. It showed maps of Britain covered in big green circles, where HS2 would uplift the economy of cities and towns. There were, however, little red circles and they were less good news and one of them was over Liverpool. To be fair, the report claimed Liverpool’s GDP could be uplifted by 1.2% in ‘favourable’ conditions, but equally it could shrink by 0.5% in ‘unfavourable’ ones. Not exactly a ringing endorsement and a worse outcome than for towns and cities that were not even connected to the network in any way, such as Hull.

In response to this threat, a coalition of academics and local business figures led by Andrew Morris banded together to form 20 Miles More, an independent campaign group lobbying for a direct, dedicated link to HS2. The 20 miles referenced in the name referred to the length of the shortest link to the HS2 network. Our group, of which I was a director, produced reports, met with political, business and transport leaders and responded to consultations. The assistance of political consultants Jon Egan and Phillip Blond helped us to secure television coverage for our launch event.

Something must have stirred because not long after the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the local councils woke up to the danger and launched their own campaign called Linking Liverpool and we’d like to think we had something to do with that. They calculated that a direct Liverpool link to HS2 would be worth £15 billion to the local economy and secure 20,000 new jobs. At last, the issue facing our city was being taken seriously.

---

“That harmful competitive disadvantage was confirmed by accounting giants KPMG. Their report showed maps of Britain covered in big green circles, where HS2 would uplift the economy of cities and towns. There were, however, little red circles and they were less good news and one of them was over Liverpool.”

---

One point that we made in our report was that a Liverpool link to HS2 could form part of a new rail link to Manchester and over the Pennines to Leeds. We felt vindicated when the Northern Powerhouse Rail initiative was launched in 2014. This envisaged six northern cities – Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle being linked by new high speed rail infrastructure. This resonated with Boris Johnson’s ‘Levelling up’ agenda.

In 2020, construction work on the first phase of HS2 (London to Birmingham) started and the realities began to strike home. The prospect of miles of countryside being torn up for a new railway generated local opposition and the wrath of environmental groups, especially in the home counties, but it was the rapidly escalating cost of the project that really concentrated minds. An initial 2010 estimate of £33 billion had now ballooned to £71 billion with some commentators suggesting  the final figure could be well over £100 billion.

Why costs spiralled out of control may be down to a number of reasons – overspecification of the initial project, inflation, procurement issues, planning delays, environmental mitigation, and of course, government interference.  The result was cutbacks and delays, culminating in Rishi Sunak’s announcement at the Tory’s Manchester Conference – bad news for ‘the north’ delivered in the self-declared heart of ‘the north’, eyeball to eyeball.

Figure 1

Routes and phasing of HS2 as they stand following Sunak’s recent announcement.

View fullsize

Looking at the map, what Sunak has done is to prune HS2 back to Phase 1, which runs from London to Birmingham. Gone is Phase 2a from Birmingham to Crewe, Phase 2b (East) from Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway and Phase 2b (West) from Crewe to Manchester. What has been retained is the link from London Euston to Old Oak Common (reportedly now subject to finding private sector investment) – vital for delivering an effective HS2 service – as well as the link at Lichfield (Handsacre) junction to the existing West Coast Main Line, which allows trains from Liverpool and Manchester to make use of HS2.

The implications for the North West are significant and on the upside, the damaging inequality between Liverpool and Manchester identified by Heseltine and Leahy has been removed. So, from the completion of Phase One (currently scheduled for some time between 2029 and 2033), both Liverpool and Manchester will have services to London making use of existing tracks as far as Lichfield. Trains will run on HS2 for over 60% of the distance from London to the North West with the remainder of the journey on the much slower classic network. That will give a journey time to Liverpool of around one hour and 46 minutes and to Manchester of one hour and 41 minutes. This five-minute difference contrasts with the 26-minute difference that would have occurred had Phase 2b gone ahead. Liverpool’s train capacity will be unaffected, remaining at two 200m long units per hour (each carrying up to 550 passengers) - whereas Manchester will see a halving of its promised capacity to three 200m units. This is because the 400m long, 1100 passenger ‘captive’ trains (trains that can only run on the new HS2 route) that were to serve Manchester under the original plans can no longer do so.

---

“It is difficult to support a proposal that would deliver so little to our city and so much to a city that is an economic rival.”

---

The reduction in overall train capacity and increase in journey time is, of course, a body blow to the North West and has resulted in accusations of betrayal in certain quarters. But while the avoidance of baked-in disadvantage between our two cities might provoke a sigh of relief in some, it would be wrong to assume that what is bad for Manchester must be good for Liverpool. As Jon Egan pointed out in his recent Liverpolitan article, Mancpool: One Mayor, One Authority, One Vision, the real disparity is not so much between Liverpool and Manchester but between the two cities and London. However, it is difficult to support a proposal that would deliver so little to our city and so much to a city that is an economic rival.

Rethinking Northern Powerhouse Rail

Another victim of the latest cuts is Northern Powerhouse Rail. This body is to be replaced by a new entity known as Network North and improved journey times are promised from Manchester to Bradford, Sheffield and Hull with £12 billion allocated to a link between Manchester and Liverpool. How that money is to be spent will be the subject of agreement between our civic leaders (and presumably other North West towns such as Warrington).

Northern Powerhouse Rail envisaged high speed lines linking the main cities of the North West. However, when the Department of Transport published the Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) in 2021, these aspirations were somewhat diluted.

Figure 2:

The Integrated Rail Plan (2021) - not so integrated now

View fullsize

---

“What does all this mean for that ring-fenced £12bn route between Liverpool and Manchester? Will there still be a requirement for the Manchester Airport tunnel? Budgeted around the £5bn mark (before inflation hit) that would take a hefty chunk out of the available cash.”

---

According to the IRP plan, the Liverpool to Manchester rail route would be achieved by a mixture of upgraded freight and passenger lines, some new construction and the Manchester branch of HS2.

This arrangement was never optimum – being seen as a ‘bolt-on extra’ to HS2. However, it did directly connect Liverpool to the new rail network allowing a London connection to HS2 via Tatton Junction.

Changes were made to the IRP routing following the publication of Sir Peter Hendy’s Union Connectivity Review in November 2021. Hendy identified that the best way of increasing passenger and freight capacity to Scotland and Northern Ireland (via the Port of Liverpool) was by upgrading the existing West Coast Main Line north of Crewe.

The proposed route of HS2 to the North – the ‘Golborne Spur’ to the east of Warrington - was subsequently deleted and a review put in place to determine an alternative route that better met the aspirations of the Hendy report.  This is, for now, clearly off the agenda.

So, what does all this mean for that ring-fenced £12bn route between our cities? Will it stay the same or once again morph into something else? Certainly, this is an opportunity to completely rethink the Liverpool to Manchester link. For example, will there still be a requirement for the Manchester Airport tunnel? If so, budgeted around the £5bn mark (before inflation hit) that would take a hefty chunk out of the available cash – although it is difficult to see how else a new link can be run into central Manchester. However, given that there is no longer a need to accommodate HS2, strictly speaking there’s no reason why an improved alignment can’t be sought. But there may be other ways to spend the money.

A Mersey Crossrail?

Prime Minister Sunak has promised that the £36 billion ‘saved’ by the cancellation of HS2 Phase 2 will be re-invested in a plethora of new transport projects. Mention has been made of electrifying the North Wales main line, extending the Midland Metro, a host of road projects and finally giving Leeds its long-promised metro. Given that the cancellation means that we in Liverpool will now suffer from reduced journey time to the capital, let’s hope that a reasonable slice of that money comes to our city.

Liverpool has a developed transport network thanks to the infrastructure work of the 1970s, which gave us the Merseyrail system. However, one problem with the network is its limited coverage. The frequent electric trains running underground in the city centre only serve the Wirral, Sefton, a narrow strip of north, south and central Liverpool (but not the east) and a small part of Knowsley. That is a result of a failure to complete the original project following funding constraints in the mid-70s.

Now, we have the chance to complete that project – something that would give the Liverpool City Region a comprehensive rapid transit system second to none in the UK outside the capital.

I’m going to call it Mersey Crossrail because it would truly open up transit from north to south and east to west. It would make possible near seamless travel not only within Liverpool but also to the important network of satellite towns around and beyond the city region. The access to new job and lifestyle opportunities that would arise would be transformative for our people, while also encouraging modal shift to greener forms of transport.  How much would this work cost? Probably in the region of £1 billion, which is a fraction of the cost of constructing a similar system in another city. That is because so much of the system is already in place.

So, what would this project entail? Apologies in advance because I’m now going to get into the nuts and bolts. I can’t help myself, I’m a rail enthusiast.

---

“Mersey Crossrail would make possible near seamless travel not only within Liverpool but also to the important network of satellite towns around and beyond the city region.”

---

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Imagined, new Liverpool Central Station at the heart of an expanded Merseyrail network. Images by: mmcdstudio.

A 4-Step Transport Plan for Liverpool - Features and Benefits

Step 1. Expand Liverpool Central Station

First up, an expansion of Liverpool Central station, which currently hosts Northern Line services to Southport, Ormskirk, Kirkby and Hunts Cross. The station suffers from overcrowding due to its cramped island platform and the need for enlargement has long been recognised.. Widening the station envelope would not only improve the passenger experience, it would also unlock the next stage of transport expansion.

Step 2. Unlock the network by building the ‘Edge Hill Spur’

A new tunnel would be constructed from the south end of the station to Edge Hill connecting to the disused Wapping Tunnel which dates from the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830. This proposal was formerly known as ‘The Edge Hill Spur’ and is the key to unlocking the true potential of the Merseyrail network because trains would now be able to run seamlessly east to west underneath the city streets in part by using old, mothballed underground tunnels. This Edge Hill link would effectively form a Mersey Crossrail with the prospect of services running between towns such as St Helens and West Kirby. Construction would involve minimal disruption to existing services thanks to header tunnels constructed back in the ‘70s.

The benefits of such a scheme are immense. Merseyrail would be cheaper to run because transiting through the city instead of terminating makes more economical use of trains and train crews, potentially increasing train frequency. However, it’s the expanded travel opportunities that would be the major plus.

Every station on Merseyrail would be within a maximum of one change of every other one. For example, City Line passengers would have direct access to Liverpool Central and Moorfields with their retail and employment opportunities or could run through to other destinations such as Birkenhead, Chester, Bootle or Southport.

---

“Every station on Merseyrail would be within a maximum of one change of every other one.”

---

Step 3. A new underground station for the Knowledge Quarter

One proposal that’s never made it off the drawing board is an underground station near to the university on Catherine Street serving the Hope / Myrtle Street area. Build the Mersey Crossrail and this could become a realistic option, not only adding important services for our legion of students and academics but also a much-needed shot in the arm for the broader Knowledge Quarter, including the strategically important Paddington Village area with its growing medical biotech cluster.

Step 4. Create new Merseyrail branches to the wider city region and beyond

With the partial reconstruction of a former flyover at Edge Hill, City Line services could link Runcorn to St Helens and Newton-le-Willows. This would add three more branches to the Merseyrail network covering a broader sweep of Liverpool, Knowsley, St Helens and Halton. Services could even be extended beyond the City Region boundary to Wigan, Manchester and Crewe thanks to the Northern Hub electrification schemes of the last decade and the introduction of the new fleet of Merseyrail trains with their dual voltage capability.

Another opportunity, which is already in progress, and which would benefit from additional funding, is the extension of the existing Merseyrail network using battery technology. We can now see this technology in operation with the opening of the new Kirkby Headbolt Lane station. This is served by trains running off the electrified network from the existing terminus at Kirkby. Future proposed destinations include Preston via Ormskirk, Warrington Bank Quay via Helsby, Wigan Walgate via Kirkby and, possibly the complete length of the ‘Borderlands’ Line from Bidston as far as Wrexham.

One great benefit of battery extensions, apart from avoiding the cost of extending electrification, is the opportunity to displace existing diesel services (e.g. Kirkby to Wigan, Ormskirk to Preston), so both reducing operating costs and harmful emissions.

Figure 3:

Shows the Merseyrail extensions possible with the Mersey Crossrail scheme. It also shows the existing proposals for battery extensions of the existing Wirral and Northern Lines.

View fullsize

With all of the proposed extensions in place, Merseyrail would become a powerful regional rail network, fully integrated into Liverpool City Centre. It would extend both into North East Wales and Greater Manchester.

It should be noted that, these extensions reflect the level of spending on transport expected for a city region the size of Liverpool, with a population of 1.5 million people. It is by no means extravagant.

The cancellation of Phase 2 of HS2 has been a blow for the North West region. However, the Liverpool City Region missed out on the initial proposals. Now, there is an excellent chance to redraw the rail map of the North West to give a more equitable distribution of the benefits that will still flow from the Phase 1 railway.

We now have a second chance with everything to play for. So, let’s hope that our political leaders take notice and deliver us the transport system that the region so clearly requires.

---

Martin Sloman is a civil engineer and former railway consultant. He is a director of the ‘20 Miles More’ lobby group, a coalition of academics and local business figures, which campaigned for a direct link from Liverpool to HS2.

---

---

What do you think? Let us know.

Add a comment below, join the debate via Twitter or Facebook or drop us a line at team@liverpolitan.co.uk

Trams-phobia. Time to face our fear of light rail

Prof. Lewis Lesley

Liverpool’s status at the point of embarkation for the first inter-city train journey is well acknowledged and celebrated, but it’s also the case that our city region (or Birkenhead to be more precise) was the location for Britain’s first ever urban tramway in 1860.

Trams continued to be a major means of transit and connectivity across the City Region until the late 1950s. The rise of personalised motor vehicles and the desire of drivers for unimpeded priority over cumbersome fixed-track trams, led to their gradual replacement by diesel buses across the UK and many other countries.

In recent decades there has of course been a growing awareness that ever increasing car use has presented its own set of problems including poor air quality, congestion, fatalities and injuries arising from crashes, not to mention the motor vehicle’s not inconsiderable contribution to global warming. The desire to rebalance cities, reduce congestion and pollution and prioritise sustainable transport modes, has led to a major renewal of interest in trams as a key component in cleaner and more efficient urban transit. Today, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Nottingham, Edinburgh and Bristol are amongst the cities that either have or are planning to introduce integrated tram networks as part of their urban transport system.

So why not Liverpool? Light Rail systems (trams on tracks) are not only not under active consideration, but they have become a taboo subject never to be whispered in the corridors of power. Why is this the case, and shouldn’t proper consideration be given to the contribution that trams could make to addressing some of our most acute transport and environmental policy challenges?

Let me start by declaring an interest. I am not only an expert advocate for trams, but I played a key role in promoting a tram system for Liverpool between the city centre and John Lennon Airport in the 1990s. The project had a number of notable and attractive features; lightweight trams and track would have been a less intrusive and costly option to the system then being installed with great fanfare in Manchester. But perhaps its most significant component, at least as far as the public decision-makers were concerned was that it was to be delivered and financed entirely by the consortium's lead partner, PowerGen.

The repercussions of the Merseytram fiasco were enough to make trams a toxic subject and a trauma that no local politician ever wanted to revisit.

Private investment in Liverpool has, alas, never been an uncontentious or universally welcomed proposition. The idea that a private company should physically install as well as operate a modern transport system was perhaps ahead of its time, and considered something of an affront to the teams at Merseytravel and Liverpool City Council. Their preferred option was something called the Merseyside Rapid Transit System - effectively guided buses - which was ultimately thrown out by the Secretary of State for Transport. Despite its comparative drawbacks, its status as an approved Merseytravel scheme ensured that our consortium's proposals received less than perfunctory consideration and planning permission was refused. Unlike trams that operate on dedicated track, MRTS would have operated on existing roads, competing for space and priority with other road users. Without dedicated road space and right of way priority even the modern incarnation of "trackless trams,"  with their sleek train-like appearance  - designed to overcome the "trams are sexy, buses are boring perception" - are a poor second best solution. Steel traction always provides a better ride and passenger experience than rubber on tarmac.

Some years passed. By 2005, even Merseytravel had embraced the tram concept.

Fig 1: Merseytram’s proposed 3-line network

A three line network was proposed with routes from Liverpool city centre to Kirkby, Prescot and Whiston and the airport. But the project was doomed to failure and it’s a sorry tale with many twists and turns.  Project costs spiralled amid delays, accusations of poor value for money, arguments over which routes should be prioritised, as well as reported management failures at Merseytravel as outlined in a damning 53-page report by District Auditor, Judy Tench.

Relationships between the transport authority and councils, who were responsible for providing a not insignificant chunk of the now £325m budget for Line One, proved challenging and buy-in was never firmly established. Merseytravel spent £70m on consultancy fees, land acquisition, design, initial engineering and steel for the tracks without ever getting final sign-off from the Treasury. The government watched on as Merseytram morphed from a transport project into a local political football.

Senior management at Merseytravel blamed “rogue officials” at the City Council such as CEO David Henshaw for undermining the project, claiming he was leaking information to the Department for Transport, which chipped away at the government’s confidence.  The City Council saw it another way believing the project was an impertinent and poorly managed imposition on their turf by Merseytravel. In the face of political rows, planning wrangles and the absence of unequivocal local political support, the government’s patience wore out. Despite being granted full planning approval at a Public Inquiry, the prospect of ongoing squabbles between the City Council and Merseytravel, ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of funding by the then Transport Minister, Sadiq Khan.

Merseytravel spent £70m on consultancy fees, land acquisition, design, engineering and steel without ever getting final sign-off from the Treasury. Merseytram had morphed from a transport project into a local political football.

Interestingly, the decision to prioritise the Kirkby route over the more obviously strategic and commercially viable route to Liverpool airport, was one of the reasons why Merseytram lost the crucial support of the City Council in the first place. The Kirkby route scored higher in terms of regeneration and social value attracting higher capital grant support from central government but it came at greater financial risk to the local authorities and they were reluctant to jump in. In the end, the only thing the city had to show for it was substantial debts, embarrassed red faces, and a stack of unnecessary compulsory purchase orders on private property. Sadly, the repercussions of the Merseytram fiasco, including the selling off of the unused steel rails for a third of their original purchase price was enough to make trams a toxic subject and a trauma that no local politician ever wanted to revisit.

In the intervening years, trams have been introduced into other major cities with great success and growing public popularity. Yet Liverpool, burned by its past experiences, has shied away from taking a fresh look at the subject and has avoided initiating any kind of study or research to evaluate the potential benefits or contribution of light rail to the region’s future transport needs.

But can we really allow political embarrassment to preclude consideration of a transport option that in 2005 was recognised as an inherently good idea? As late as 2012 Liverpool Vision’s Strategic Investment Framework (SIF) embraced the need for a direct rapid transit link to Liverpool Airport, which was once again addressed in our 2015 Trampower proposal.

So what are the potential benefits of a tram system for Liverpool City Region and how might it help us to solve some of our most pressing policy challenges?

1.  Trams are clean and green

During the first Covid lockdown, reductions in car traffic realised an enormous and immediate improvement in air quality, but car use is now already back to pre-Covid levels, whilst public transport patronage is only at half its former level. Transport is the main source of toxic air pollution and in a city where more than 60% of all journeys are by car, motor vehicles bear a massive responsibility for the estimated 1,040 annual deaths in the city region arising from bronchial and cardio illnesses attributable to poor air quality. Reducing car use and promoting modal shift towards public transport would make a substantive contribution to improving air quality and ensuring fewer illnesses and deaths.

Similarly, cars are a huge source of CO2 emissions locally and globally. The recent COP26 summit in Glasgow drew up plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 to avert the worst consequences of global warming. Liverpool City Region has adopted an ambitious Climate Action Plan and aims to be carbon neutral before 2040. This will necessitate a comprehensive reappraisal of transport policies, beyond its current rail investment and bus re-regulation plans, to achieve modal shift and reduce private car use. Whilst electric cars produce no CO2 they do create carcinogenic micro particles from tyres and tarmac. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of their contribution to CO2 reduction depends significantly on how quickly people make the switch from diesel and petrol, which in turn will be influenced by the availability of charging points. So, notwithstanding the environmental benefit of electric cars, they are not going to provide the magic bullet. Promoting modal shift where possible to reduce congestion and pollution should encompass consideration of sustainable transport modes, including trams.

2. People like trams

Where trams have been introduced in other UK cities they have resulted in a significant shift from private car use to public transport with roughly a quarter of users attracted away from their cars. According to a study by the Passenger Transport Executive Group it was estimated that the first wave of tram systems in the UK led to an annual reduction of 22 million car journeys, with more recent studies suggesting this figure is now nearer to 60 million.

Trams are reliable, they run to predictable timetables and are three times more energy efficient than buses. There is also significant evidence that they are perceived as more modern, aspirational and attractive to commuters who would be unwilling to switch to buses. The introduction of the Luas tram system in Dublin was instrumental in ensuring that two thirds of all journeys into the city centre are now via public transport, compared to only a quarter in Liverpool.  Attitudinal studies in Dublin revealed that many tram users from the more affluent suburbs would never contemplate bus use.

A Department for Transport Survey in 2019 showed that tram passengers gave a 90% approval rating, because trams are 90% reliable, as well as 73% always finding space and 70% agreeing tram fares are good value for money.

3. Trams make quicker connections between neighbourhoods and centres of employment

As recognised by the 2015 Liverpool Vision SIF a direct rapid transport link to

Liverpool John Lennon Airport remains a fundamental necessity. We are one of the few UK or major international cities without such a link, and extending the rail connection from South Parkway is neither practicable in terms of land availability nor affordable. Trampower has demonstrated the viability and affordability of a tram link to John Lennon Airport which would also serve key retail and employment sites as well as residential neighbourhoods not currently served by Merseyrail. The detailed scoping and feasibility work undertaken by Trampower envisaged a tram every six minutes, and a journey between the airport and city centre taking about half an hour, with a high level of reliability thanks to traffic-free tram reservations for nearly half the route, and ‘green wave’ priority traffic management for the rest.

Trams and streetcars have also been mooted as a means of improving connectivity to emerging, but currently disconnected employment areas like Liverpool’s Knowledge Quarter and Wirral Waters. Whether these are stand-alone solutions or part of an integrated city region network, the proposals acknowledge the value and popularity of trams as a means of getting large numbers of people from A to B within a dynamic urban environment. With one line operational, additional lines can be added on a marginal cost basis, so strengthening otherwise weak financial cases.

4. Trams are more affordable and cost effective

Whereas extending Merseyrail from South Parkway to the airport may seem like a preferable option, for the volume of passengers involved, it would simply be uneconomic. Despite the Chancellor’s substantial, recent £710m transport grant to the Metro Mayor, there is limited scope to significantly extend metro rail infrastructure across the city region due to its intrinsic cost. As one senior transport practitioner observed, trams cost 10% of a metro rail system and deliver 90% of the benefits. So a tramway could therefore be a cost effective solution, and serve communities along the route very well.  Focusing on the priority route to Liverpool Airport, Trampower identified at least 60 possible routes and combinations, many following old tram lines which utilised the central reservations of boulevards in the south of the city. In addition, there is already space allocated at the Liverpool One bus terminus for trams dating from the failed Merseytram project.

Combining lighter, newer CityClass Mk2 trams with a low profile “no dig – glue in the road” track system would further reduce the cost and time of installation in streets, and provide work for British Steel to roll LR55 rails, saving on imports. LR55 has been in use in Sheffield for over 25 years without needing any maintenance.

5. Trams deliver investment and regeneration

Trams bring investor confidence, as demonstrated in Croydon, Manchester, Nottingham and wherever they have been installed. This means that development is attracted to locations close to tramways, benefiting from the improved quality of service offered with enhanced accessibility and reliability. Research published by Lloyds Bank looking at the effect of tram systems in Manchester, Birmingham and Edinburgh revealed that house prices rose by 12% compared to average rises in unserved parts of those cities. More generally, trams are seen as a visible sign of investment, ambition and modernity, boosting civic pride and confidence and helping to attract tourism. Manchester’s civic leaders have cited the Metrolink tram system as one of the pivotal investments that transformed perceptions of the city.

In conclusion, trams are clean, green, efficient and affordable. They deliver outputs that are hard to replicate through comparable investment in rail or bus. It’s not the purpose of this article to insist our city region embraces the tram now, but we should be willing to put it in the mix and to evaluate their potential contribution to meeting future transport, regeneration and environmental challenges. It's time for our Metro Mayor to signal a new era, and a willingness to consider ideas and proposals emanating from outside the closed circle of public sector policy makers - still seemingly traumatised by the Merseytram experience. It's time to take another look at trams.

Professor Lewis Lesley is an acknowledged expert in urban public transport. Formerly Professor of Transport Science at Liverpool John Moores University, he is also the author of the Light Rail Developers’ Handbook. As Technical Director at Trampower Ltd, he provides consultancy on the design and development of light rail technology.

Share this article

HS2 - A Liverpool coup?

Michael McDonough & Paul Bryan

View fullsize

The Department for Transport has released the ‘Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands’ to much wailing and gnashing of teeth anywhere north of Birmingham. But is it really as bad as all that? What exactly does it mean for the future of the Liverpool City Region and its rail connectivity?

Depending where you live, HS2 (or High Speed 2) has been seen either as a god-send for levelling up or a blight on pristine countryside. It’s been controversial from the start. Some of that has to do with the cost - after all you can buy quite a lot for the, by some estimates £100bn+ price tag. Some of it has to do with a sense of entitlement or environmental catastrophism in the home counties from the Not In My Back Yard brigade. But mostly, it’s the long-running sore of unequal investment, as northerners watch on jealously as one prestige project after another has been signed off around London. ‘When is it our turn?’, we asked and it seemed HS2 and HS3, subsequently christened Northern Powerhouse Rail, was the answer. Of course, Labour’s northern strongholds have long been suspicious, ever watchful for that knife in the back, and who can blame them? Rumours of nips and tucks to the ambitions of northern travellers have circulated for years and now those rumours have been put out of their misery. The eastern leg to Leeds is no more, Manchester is not getting it’s gold-plated underground station, Bradford is off the map and Newcastle, well they were never on it in the first place. But what about Liverpool?

‘The North’ is, and perhaps always was, a convenient ‘catch-all’ phrase used to hide the oh-so-obvious regeneration focus on Manchester.’

Watching the whole HS2 debacle from Liverpool has been something of a frustrating process. From the outset, our leaders have done their level-best impression of an ostrich with it’s head somewhere where the sun doesn’t shine. They never seemed to understand the existential threat that HS2 posed to the city in its ‘Manchester-friendly’ form. Ah, Manchester, that northern capital (self-appointed), who doesn’t dream of being relegated to commuter-town status to serve that inflated mill-town? At Liverpolitan, that’s long been our suspicion, since before we were a twinkle in our self-published eye(s). ‘The North’, is and perhaps always was a convenient ‘catch-all’ phrase used to hide the oh-so-obvious regeneration focus on Manchester and the lack of focus on other places like Liverpool, Bradford and Newcastle. The logic of agglomeration means all roads point east along the M62. Why don’t they just admit it instead of all this secret code stuff?

Which brings us back to the Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands. If it’s true that ‘The North’ is something of a deception to hide the fact that its cities have competing interests, then maybe we should take off the northern hair shirt and look with fresh eyes at the government’s new plan. Forget about the others, what does it mean for Liverpool?

Manchester-centric

Before we tuck too far into that, it’s most probably worth a quick history lesson. The HS2 project was first launched in 2009 by the Labour government and then picked up a year later by the newly elected Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition administration. They quickly began a consultation on a route from London to Birmingham, with a Y-shaped section to Manchester and Leeds. High speed rail was to become one of the centre pieces of then Chancellor George Osbourne’s ‘vision’ for an all-inclusive ‘Northern Powerhouse’ (singular, not plural) viewed through the skewed lens of his Tatton, Cheshire constituency.

The resulting report and general direction of travel made it immediately clear that this mammoth piece of railway infrastructure was going to serve up yet another Manchester-centric political indulgence. The scales would be tipped conclusively in favour of ‘regional capitals’ such as Manchester and Leeds, relegating cities such as Liverpool and Sheffield to more tertiary positions. Liverpool’s obvious absence from visuals, media coverage and general debate around the HS2 project only seemed to re-enforce this essentially political idea. For some, it may have entrenched notions of ‘managed decline’ by an uncaring Conservative government but our Liverpool leaders didn’t seem to notice. Look trains! Trains good…

At the time, there were numerous debates and disputes around the data on rail capacity, BCR (benefits-cost ratio) and route alignments, all used to justify a heavy public investment on the Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds sections of the line. Train-spotter types got all exercised about it. There seemed to be some logical perversion going on. Liverpool it was argued, didn’t need more trains to London because there wasn’t enough passenger demand, but Leeds did need more trains because, well, they needed to stimulate more demand from the current low levels. Say what? It was like one of those National Lottery games where the outcome was already determined and you only had the illusion of choice. The data was made to fit the argument as far as the Liverpool City Region was concerned. Led by Transport Minister Lord Andrew Adonis, the plan for HS2 would leave Liverpool staring down the barrel of a future in which the struggle to stay economically competitive just got a little harder. The dice, it seemed, were stacked.

From the beginning Liverpool’s politicians didn’t seem on the ball. Even ones with a bit of clout weren’t really arguing Liverpool’s case. Maria Eagle (former Shadow Transport Minister) and Louise Ellman (Transport Select Committee) were strangely absent from the debate despite holding roles that would have helped give Liverpool a voice. It was only after the establishment of 20 Miles More, a campaigning lobby group which made the case for better Liverpool HS2 connections, that the city region’s leaders finally started to understand the peril and by then it was very much an uphill struggle. Our politicians had like Emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned (according to legend).

View fullsize

Prioritising Planes

Meanwhile, to the east our friends in Greater Manchester had hit the jackpot, although it must be said, that forward-thinking and a pragmatic attitude to working with Conservative governments had certainly played their role. The HS2 alignment was to track away from Liverpool with its 1.6m inhabitants to serve a dedicated Manchester Airport station (and its Cheshire hinterlands) on the main trunk line. This gold plated promise, which would punishingly add to journey times between Liverpool and London came courtesy of a vague commitment to make a local ‘contribution’ to costs and a Chancellor whose own constituency sits perhaps coincidentally on the south western fringe of the city. Naturally, Manchester was also awarded with a further £7bn tunnel bored all the way to the city centre to meet a new station alongside Manchester Piccadilly.

In short, from the start HS2 pushed Liverpool to the periphery. The city region would be served by a slow lane connection using old tracks and with no promise of additional capacity. While Manchester and Leeds were drawing up plans for regenerated business quarters and glamorous city-pads off the back of huge station investments, some evidence pointed to the project causing a net loss in GVA (Gross Value Added) for the Liverpool City Region. No investment, no seat at the table and notably, no meaningful support from ‘The North’ to help Liverpool to benefit. That’s northern solidarity in action. Politician, Andy Burnham likes to speak for ‘the North’ but invariably only one city seems to benefit from his political manoeuvring.

It begs the question, whether Liverpool should de-couple itself from the pan-northern view that the government transport plans are a disaster. If the old plans weren’t so good for us, maybe the new plans are better? It is clear that Manchester and Leeds stood to gain the most from HS2 as previously defined. Now that the eastern leg of HS2 to Leeds has been entirely removed, maybe the focus of the benefits have moved a little closer to home.

Liverpool should take a more pragmatic view when assessing this change of direction and put the interests of our city first.

The Government’s New Plans

The first thing to say is that as far as the new Integrated Rail Plan is concerned, it’s a case of swings and roundabouts. Liverpool gains in some areas and loses in others. For HS2, things are looking much rosier, whereas the never fully committed to and still very much a paper project, Northern Powerhouse Rail has been downgraded. But one thing is clear. It is simply untrue to say, as Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram did, that the government have “chosen not to deliver anything at all.”

So let’s look at HS2. What the government is now proposing for Liverpool brings fast tracks much closer to the city. It’s better late than never ambitions to have a dedicated spur from the main route, while in no way fully delivered, have taken a major step forward. The argument that Liverpool is important enough to receive a better service appears after a long and bloody battle and against all the odds to have been won. Whereas before, Liverpool’s connection to the new rail network was situated some 40 miles away, just south of Crewe, under the latest proposal HS2 tracks will now run to Ditton Junction, approximately 11 miles distant and right on the outskirts of the city. This resolves one of the two main capacity constraints facing our part of the network and substantially increases the scope for an expansion of freight services - a key strategic goal for the growth of Liverpool’s port. It will achieve this by relieving the congested section of the West Coast Mainline (WCML) between Crewe and Weaver Junction (where the Liverpool branch connects) allowing many more freight paths towards the Midlands and the South. As an added bonus the revised route will also reduce journey times to London for passengers although by only a modest 2 minutes.

View fullsize

Those improvements will be achieved through a combination of new track linking Manchester to Warrington Bank Quay station and the use of the under-utlised Fiddler’s Ferry route which will be redeveloped and electrified (without a significant effect on existing passenger services).

Of course, what we all want is for new track to be laid all the way to central Liverpool serviced by a station with sufficient capacity to handle the additional services, as was discussed in Martin Sloman’s article, Lime Street or Bust? The options for Liverpool’s HS2 station. But we should point out in the interests of fairness, that a new station and new dedicated track is not and never has been on offer from the government; it’s just something we feel the city needs. To go those extra eleven miles and build a new station would, according to the report, require local funding. This is, of course, a ludicrous and hypocritical position for a national government to take (given the resources thrown at other cities) but there’s room for optimism. A future government may take a different view and once the engineers start to tuck into the final details and look at the numbers, the business case for raising ambitions further may become obvious. After all, the big argument for better Liverpool services has been won.

In the meantime, the rail plan proposes a solution to the second big capacity constraint facing Liverpool - the narrow throat that is the entrance to Lime Street Station. This acts as a significant break on the amount of trains that can come in and out of the station at any one time, producing that all too familiar Victorian-era crawl over the last mile. The report recognises this issue and proposes that development work should focus on altering Lime Street and its approaches. Intriguingly, it states that ‘Network Rail analysis also shows that Liverpool Lime Street station can be altered largely within the boundary of existing railway land to accommodate the proposed service levels resulting from HS2 and NPR.’ Further work, it says, is needed to confirm the precise scope of interventions. This clearly points towards a very significant re-modelling project for our station.

For too long Liverpool’s interests have been subsumed under a ‘Northwesternist’ agenda centred politically and economically on the needs of Manchester. It has been the failing of our local parties - all of them - Labour, Liberal, Conservatives and Greens to notice what has been going on.

If we move into the albeit not entirely reliable realms of speculation, the acceptance of the requirement to address Lime Street’s capacity constraints may open up a chink of light for the long overdue Edge Hill Spur, a project originally proposed in the 1970s. This would connect Liverpool Central station with the east of the city via the currently abandoned Wapping Tunnel to Edge Hill. If given the green light, local services could be moved out of Lime Street allowing it to concentrate on longer distance services. It would also precipitate the wholesale redevelopment of Central Station with all the benefits that would entail. We’re not saying it’s going to happen. Just that if you follow the logic of the report, it kind of makes sense.

Runcorn appears to be the big loser in this new plan, as it will no longer be on the HS2 map. But all is not lost for south Liverpool. A new station at Ditton Junction would serve the same market equally well and has to be an option as the detail of the plans are worked through. It is also not beyond the bounds of possibility that an expanded Lime Street could support a London-Runcorn service on the old WCML or provide a connection at Crewe.

One of the not really spoken about benefits of the new plan is that Liverpool’s new connections should now open at the same time as HS2 Phase 2B to Manchester. In an age when Liverpool must learn to compete with its northwest city brother in every field, this is an important win. Comparative journey time penalties to London will impact on our attractiveness to investors and although we do concede a 21-minute longer travel time, it would have been worse and in place for longer under the old plan. Marginal gains can add up.

As for Northern Powerhouse Rail, it’s hard to argue that we are now on anything but thinner gruel. Travel times to Manchester will not improve appreciably from the current levels offered to Victoria Station, and the Piccadilly route will be 6 minutes slower than was previously proposed. Trips between Liverpool-Leeds will also be slower, downgraded from 61 minutes to 73, although still significantly faster than the 106 minutes we experience today. Either way, as most people don’t like to commute for substantially more than one hour and tend to live in suburbs, not train stations, it’s never been truly convincing to believe that significant numbers would commute between the two cities of Liverpool and Leeds anyway. Nevertheless, in the cold light of day, NPR may not be what we dreamed of, but it’s still a significant step up from what we suffer in the present.

So despite the generally negative tone from media commentators and local politicians (who will be driven by their own political imperatives), the proposals carry with them some very sensible ideas. If implemented, the rail plan will mean the Liverpool City region benefits from:

• New infrastructure for both HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail services

• Improved capacity, journey times, frequencies and connectivity

• Facilities will now open simultaneously with Phase 2B to Manchester

Andrew Morris of 20 Miles More told us, “The journalistic hype is quite different from the reality. My reading of the new plan is that, although imperfect, it’s a coup for Liverpool. Since the 20 Miles More campaign, the Liverpool City Region has raised its ambitions and engaged constructively with HM Government. The LCR has been unified and managed to navigate through the political quagmire the Department for Transport created when it threw in together all of the northern centres stakeholders. Yorkshire has lost out due to a lack of unity.”

It’s hard to square the comments of Andrew, who has been living and breathing train services for decades with those of Steve Rotherham, our Metro Mayor. He said, “Northern Powerhouse Rail had the chance to be transformational for our area and the wider north and important for the UK on the whole. But many voices including my own said they were going to deliver transformation on the cheap. Instead they’ve chosen not to deliver anything at all. We were promised Grand Designs, but we’ve had to settle for 60 Minute Make Over.”

The Manchester to Liverpool section of Northern Powerhouse Rail has been prioritised ahead of Manchester to Leeds. For Leeds and Bradford, that’s not good. But for Liverpool, well we should be OK with that. This is where we should have been from the beginning, because the Liverpool-Manchester axis has greater economic potential than the Manchester-Leeds one.

For too long Liverpool’s interests have been subsumed under a ‘Northwesternist’ agenda centred politically and economically on the needs of Manchester. It has been the failing of our local parties - all of them - Labour, Liberal, Conservatives and Greens to notice what has been going on. Instead, they were too busy picking their own small-time fights while competitor cities manoeuvred to advantage around us. Perhaps if our politicians adopted a more pragmatic approach to working with central government, whatever it’s political hue, we might not have needed campaigns like 20 Miles More in the first place.

As you wade through the interminable list of articles about the disaster that is the new Integrated Rail Plan, think on this… is it possible that most commentators are operating under a logical fallacy? That they have swallowed whole the idea that ‘The North’ is a single identity with common interests and that loss to one is loss to all? If we are being brutally honest, Liverpool may actually benefit competitively in a world where Leeds is a little more hobbled and where Manchester is not so dominant. It shouldn’t be a heresy to say so. Our brethren have been thinking exactly the same way behind closed doors for years. It’s time Liverpool joined the party.

Michael McDonough is the Art Director and a Co-Founder of Liverpolitan. He is also a lead creative specialising in 3D and animation, film and conceptual spatial design.

Paul Bryan is the Editor and Co-Founder of Liverpolitan. He is also a freelance content writer, script editor, communications strategist and creative coach.

Share this article

Lime Street or bust? The options for Liverpool’s HS2 station

Martin Sloman

View fullsize

HS2, the planned high speed rail route from London to the North, is a controversial project. National media bombard us with stories of costs out of control, natural habitats being devastated and eco warriors being evicted from tunnels and tree houses. There are also the persistent rumours that all or part of the project is to be cancelled. However, make no mistake, HS2 is happening.

As I write this, construction is well underway on Phase 1 of the project (London to Birmingham) and Phase 2A (Birmingham to Crewe) will start in 2024. Early next year, a parliamentary bill will be submitted for a further phase – 2B-West (Crewe to Manchester and Wigan). That leaves Phase 2B- East (Birmingham to Leeds via the East Midlands), which is currently rumoured to face delay or cancellation.

Attitudes to HS2 vary from enthusiastic support in the cities to be served by the new route to vehement opposition in the communities – mainly in London and the South-East – that will suffer the environmental impact. However, here in Liverpool, the reaction has been muted. That is because HS2 is not coming to Liverpool or, at least, the route won’t be coming, the trains will be.

The Liverpool City Region Linking Liverpool campaign and the business-led lobby group 20 Miles More have both highlighted the importance to the city and region of being on the high-speed rail network. This is now a realistic possibility due to the emergence of the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) proposal, a new route which would link the major cities of the North of England and in so doing, connect Liverpool to HS2. However, if HS2 and NPR are to come to Liverpool, we will need a station to serve them. The existing Lime Street is simply not big enough.

Finding a suitable site for a new terminus station within Liverpool city centre is no easy matter and so, at the end of 2020, Metro Mayor, Steve Rotherham set up a commission to locate a suitable site. Describing his vision as “much more than a rail station”, the Mayor seemed keen to set an ambitious agenda.

“I want it to be an architecturally stunning gateway which offers a mix of leisure, retail and office accommodation,” he said.

If HS2 and NPR are to come to Liverpool, we will need a station to serve them. The existing Lime Street is simply not big enough

---

The commission is chaired by Everton CEO, Denise Barrett-Baxendale who outlined the importance of the project to the whole area:

“The city region is faced with the momentous task of rebuilding its economy after the pandemic. This project is exactly what is needed to boost the region and bring much needed jobs and prosperity to the area, something I am extremely passionate about.”

No date has yet been announced for the commission to report. That leaves scope for speculation but, before getting into the details, let us look at some of the issues the commission face. In particular, why is this new station so important? To answer that, we first need to understand what we mean by HS2 and NPR and the economic impact that they promise to deliver.

High Speed 2

High Speed 2 (HS2) is basically a conventional railway – straighter and a little wider than the ones we are used to – but one capable of very high speeds - and I mean very high. Trains running on HS2 will regularly reach 225 miles per hour (mph), putting them amongst the fastest in the world. For comparison, the Avanti Pendolino trains currently running from Lime Street to London only achieve 125mph.

Trains will come in two types. ‘Captive’ trains will be wider than conventional British trains and so confined to the HS2 network. These trains will work the London to Birmingham service from the first day of HS2 operations and, eventually on to Manchester and Leeds. ‘Classic (or Conventional) Compatible’ trains will run from the high-speed network onto the existing railway network and so will be narrower. It is these trains that will serve destinations such as Liverpool. Both types of trains will be formed from either one or two 200m long units and both will have the same performance in terms of top speed, acceleration, and braking. All trains are passenger only with no freight services allowed on the high-speed network. Each 200m unit, which will probably be formed from up to ten carriages, will carry up to 550 passengers, so a full length 400m train will carry 1,100 passengers. That’s an 87% increase in passenger capacity compared to the longest Pendolino trains currently in use.

One disputed aspect of HS2 is the capacity of the new line in terms of trains per hour. HS2 has determined that 18 trains per hour (tph) is viable but has proposed a slightly lower service pattern of 17 tph for the completed route. This combination of speed and capacity has not been achieved anywhere else in the world and civil engineer Doug Oakervee, who carried out a review of the project in 2020, recommended a more conservative 14 tph – eventually increasing to 16tph. This capacity constraint along the whole HS2 line has implications for the Liverpool station project - as I shall explain later.

The routing and phasing of HS2 are shown in the following diagram:

View fullsize

Phase 1 (currently under construction) goes from an enlarged London Euston station to Birmingham. In so doing, it will roughly follow the line of the London and Birmingham railway, which opened in 1837 (the year of Queen Victoria’s coronation) and will use the original terminus at Curzon Street.

Phase 2a will extend Phase 1 from Birmingham to just south of Crewe. This phase is much shorter and less complex in terms of bridges, tunnels and station works, so will not start physical construction until 2024, but will be completed by the end of this decade or early next – HS2 aren’t being specific.

Phase 2b will consist of two arms to form a ‘Y’. The western arm will tunnel under Crewe to join the existing network just south of Wigan. A branch will run from Tatton (near Warrington) to an extended Manchester Piccadilly via a new Manchester Airport station. The eastern arm will run from Birmingham to Leeds with a station at Toton to serve Nottingham and Derby. Sheffield will be served via a spur line linking to the classic network. From Leeds a junction with the classic line connects to York and Newcastle.

As Phase 2b does not connect to Liverpool, the benefits to the city in terms of journey time reduction will arise solely from the first two phases. So, all being well, in less than a decade from now, travellers from Lime Street to London will be able to board a sleek new HS2 train that will whisk them to London in one hour 34 minutes – a good half an hour faster than the best current time. The first part of the journey will be on the conventional network with stops at Runcorn and Crewe, but from then on it will be non-stop 360kph to the capital. The first stop within London will be Old Oak Common in the west of the city where there will be a connection to Crossrail giving direct services to the West End, City, Canary Wharf and Heathrow Airport.

So far so good, but the main purpose of HS2 is capacity and its ability to meet growing demand for rail services and it is that which drives the need for both a Liverpool HS2 station and a new rail route linking Liverpool to HS2. Prior to the recent Covid pandemic, passenger demand for rail travel was at an all-time high and climbing. Opponents of HS2 often point to how working from home has become the ‘new normal’ and so the demand driving the new line has disappeared. It is too early to confirm or deny this claim but the forty years prior to Covid (according to Statista) saw a more than doubling of UK rail passenger journeys. It is a reasonable assumption that demand will recover and continue to grow - if at a slower rate. In addition, reduced journey times and improved connectivity make rail travel more attractive and will likely increase demand.

Currently, Liverpool to London passenger services are mainly provided by Avanti, who will hold the franchise until 2026, (when train services will be operated by a new body to be called Great British Railways). As part of their franchise agreement, they are to increase the number of peak services from Liverpool to London from one to two per hour. From 2022, they will introduce new seven car trains on the route, which will supplement the current eleven car Pendolinos to give a combined capacity of 1042 passengers per hour - only marginally fewer than the 1100 to be provided when these services are replaced by HS2. (HS2 plan two 200m long trains from Liverpool to London per hour). By comparison, Manchester and Birmingham will have capacity for three 400m long HS2 trains per hour serving a potential 3,300 passengers. There is, consequently, a genuine fear that Liverpool to London trains will be ‘standing room only’ from day one of the new service.

Of course, demand can be controlled by raising the cost of tickets. No information is currently available on HS2 pricing, but the aspiration is that it will match current levels. Clearly, deterring passengers from using the new service through exorbitant prices would be counter-productive and it would be politically difficult for Liverpool services to be singled out for higher pricing given that these services will run for some of their route on existing tracks.

However, we are not just talking about HS2 capacity from Liverpool to London but total rail capacity from our city, including freight. HS2 trains eat up track capacity because at high speed they require a longer distance to stop and need sufficient space ahead to prevent them catching up with slower passenger and freight trains. Therefore, moving these north-south trains onto new, dedicated routes frees up track space on the existing network for many more services. This additional connectivity is one of the main selling points of HS2, but it is not something that we will experience in the Liverpool City Region.

High speed trains from Liverpool will not access the HS2 route until they get to Hough, two miles south of Crewe and some 38 miles from Lime Street. Train speeds on this section vary due to track curvature and other restrictions and the current Pendolinos do not get up to their maximum speed of 200kph until they get to the main west coast rail route at Weaver Junction near Runcorn. Pendolinos tilt around curves, enabling them to go faster, so non-tilting HS2 trains may be limited to 110mph, which will increase overall journey time. However, the main problem with this section is limited capacity arising from long stretches where four tracks are reduced to two.

As previously mentioned, the west arm of Phase 2b will not connect to Liverpool. However, it will relieve capacity somewhat on the west coast route between Crewe and Warrington by removing high speed trains from Scotland to London and Birmingham. Even so, this section of route will remain a critical north-south corridor – with conventional passenger trains from Liverpool to Birmingham via Crewe and freight trains from the Port of Liverpool, the North and Scotland. To this must be added the two HS2 services from Liverpool and one from Lancaster via Warrington. Given that both passenger and freight services are expected to increase in the future, there is likely to be a major issue with capacity over this section.

It follows that the Liverpool City Region faces the double whammy of insufficient capacity on HS2 to London and insufficient released capacity on the existing network to improve connectivity to other destinations. This capacity issue is the likely reason why consultants KPMG, in their 2013 analysis of the GDP uplift attributable to HS2, gave Liverpool a rating varying from 1.2% to -0.5% - lower than some towns and cities not connected to the network. Amazingly, Liverpool may experience a net drop in GDP because of one of the greatest infrastructure investments in UK history – hardly successful ‘levelling up’.

Northern Powerhouse Rail

A frequent criticism of HS2 is that it is a London-centred project – a rail route that, by making travel to the capital easier, uplifts the London economy far more than that of the connected cities. Authorities across the north of England plan to counter this through the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) initiative - linking the major cities of the north with the intention of boosting the economies of all.

There are few details about NPR currently available, but we do know that it will be a high(ish) speed passenger network consisting of several new rail routes and part of Phase 2b of the HS2 network. It will link Liverpool to Manchester and on to Leeds, Sheffield, Hull and Newcastle. The section from Liverpool to Manchester will consist of a new route from Liverpool via Warrington to Tatton, where it will join the Manchester spur of HS2. A curve at Tatton will link to the HS2 main line, as shown in the following diagram:

View fullsize

Whilst only outline details of the NPR route are currently known, one clear advantage is that it will by-pass the congested Crewe to Warrington section of the West Coast Main Line mentioned above.  That will be a major boost to the Liverpool City Region because capacity released on the existing route will then be available for new passenger and freight services to other places.

With Liverpool directly connected to HS2 by a new high capacity and faster rail route, journey times to London will further reduce. No official journey times have been published but it is reasonable to assume that a time of I hour 15 minutes (including a Warrington stop) will be achievable. That compares to the HS2 figure of 1 hour 34 minutes and so should increase demand for Liverpool-London services even further.

We now need to look at how that demand will be satisfied within the city of Liverpool itself.

Lime St

Lime Street has been Liverpool’s main rail terminus since its opening in 1836. In 2017, major remodelling works lengthened and widened the platforms and added one more. However, no work specific to HS2 has been carried out. Consequently, when Phases 1 and 2a open, we must assume that the HS2 trains will take over the platform space vacated by the current and planned Avanti services.

The new platforms will comfortably serve the 200m long HS2 units, but the geography of the site, with St Georges Hall at the front and 50 foot high cutting walls at the rear does not lend itself to the much longer platforms required for 400m trains. Passenger growth will need to be accommodated by increasing the number of 200m HS2 units and, therefore the number of platforms dedicated to HS2 services. To this we must add the platforms dedicated to NPR services (likely to be a minimum of four trains per hour). It becomes clear that the platform space required for the additional capacity freed up by HS2/NPR will be severely restricted. However, there is a possible solution to this problem, which involves removing the Merseyrail City Line trains that currently terminate at the station. This could be done by diverting these services to Liverpool Central – a long term aspiration of Merseyrail, and one which would require re-use of the abandoned Wapping Tunnel from Edge Hill plus some new tunnelling.

Platform capacity is not the only issue. As mentioned earlier, HS2 is likely to be capacity constrained between Birmingham and London (based on the recommendations of civil engineer Doug Oakervee) and so we cannot assume that there will be paths made available for additional Liverpool services. (The current plan is for one 200m unit from Liverpool to couple at Crewe with a similar unit from Lancaster via Warrington to run to London as a 400m unit). Consequently, the use of Lime Street could become a hostage to fortune with expansion of services to London only available on the slower existing network.

Lime Street is an iconic station. Few provincial stations can match the great expanse of its twin arched roofs or the grandeur of the Victorian North-Western Hotel (soon to be the Radisson Red) at its front. Lime Street is right in the heart of the city and faces directly onto the magnificent, columned splendour of St Georges Hall. It could easily satisfy Steve Rotherham’s ‘stunning gateway’ aspiration in the same way that London St Pancras has fulfilled that brief for HS1.

On the other hand, its location, surrounded by historic and cultural buildings, does not lend itself to the commercial, retail, and residential development planned for Manchester Piccadilly or Birmingham Curzon Street. Whilst it does boast an underground Merseyrail Wirral Line station, road access is not easy and the development of a transport hub to deal with a major increase in passenger throughput would be problematic. If we are to resolve some of these problems, we need to look elsewhere.

A new HS2 / NPR Station

Freed from the constraints of Lime Street, we can look to develop a 21st century terminal suited to both HS2 and NPR. What would such a station look like? A full size HS2 station will be 415m long and at least 50m wide to allow for a minimum of four platforms. It will also have to be straight and level over its full length. Connectivity to the wider region is going to be very important and so it needs both good rail and road access. Moreover, the location needs to be in an area where its economic impact will be maximised. An HS2 station should be a catalyst for regeneration and growth. It follows that the construction of this station and its associated infrastructure should not involve demolition and disruption on a scale that detracts from its benefits.Then, of course, it must be architecturally stunning - it will be a gateway to our city and region.

Should we find a site with the potential to fulfil all these requirements, we need to consider how it will connect to the high-speed rail network. We await the publication of the Integrated Rail Plan before we know how the proposed route will enter Liverpool. However, a reasonable assumption is that it will approach the city centre via Edge Hill to the east, rather than from the north and south. That is the most logical direction for a route from Warrington and Manchester and follows existing infrastructure such as the original Liverpool and Manchester Railway and the M62 motorway. (Paralleling existing routes is one way of reducing the impact of new infrastructure).

From Edge Hill, its route into the city centre would need to be underground if large scale demolition is to be avoided. That could require a completely new tunnel or, possibly, re-use of the abandoned Waterloo or Wapping tunnels that once served dockside goods depots. In practice, these tunnels have insufficient width for two HS2 tracks (having been built to restricted dimensions) and so a parallel single-track tunnel would probably be required. However, overall costs would be reduced.

Is there a site that fits all the requirements? Probably not, but this diagram shows a few suggestions.

View fullsize

1. Lime Street

This is not the historic station discussed above but a new station on an adjacent site. (e.g. on the south side of Lord Nelson Street – the site of the existing station car park and Liner Hotel). Approach tracks could be by means of the Waterloo / Victoria tunnel.

Pros:

• Historically, Liverpool’s main station.

• Good location for main city retail area and cultural quarter.

• Existing station architecturally impressive with North-Western Hotel refurbishment enhancing its appeal.

• Merseyrail Wirral Line connection.

Cons:

• Very restricted site. Expansion would require major demolition.

• Ground level difference over length of station requiring major excavation and / or platforms in tunnel.

• Road access awkward.

• Built-up and historic area doesn’t lend itself to significant development.

One variation on this option might be sitting the new station slightly further away. For example, on the land behind the World Museum / Central Library / Art Gallery block vacated by the former flyovers. Another possibility is that a new station could focus on serving shorter, classic trains allowing the existing station to concentrate on HS2 and NPR services. This would reduce building costs. However, it would be very difficult to accommodate 400m long trains in either configuration.

2. Former Exchange Station, Tithebarn Street

Until recently, this site was mainly given over to surface car parks – although the Liverpool Exchange (formerly Mercury Court) office development occupies the southern part.

Pros:

• Central location near to main business district and within walking distance of the Town Hall.

• Existing station buildings would give an elegant frontage.

• Easy access to both Wirral and Northern lines of Merseyrail.

• Good road access via Leeds Street.

• Large, mainly undeveloped site.

• Local area ripe for regeneration as homes or offices.

Cons:

• Demolition of existing Liverpool Exchange offices required.

• Pall Mall development currently proposed for site (not yet started).

• Approach tracks would require significant tunnelling.

• Platforms would need to span Leeds Street.

This is a very appealing site given its location and connectivity, and one which could stimulate commercial and retail development in this part of the city centre. Conflicting proposals for the site would be a major issue but office buildings could be built above the new station as an ‘air rights’ development.

3. Exchange Station Approaches (North of Leeds Street).

This is a large, disused site formerly occupied by the approach tracks to the abandoned Liverpool Exchange Station. It is to the north of the Infinity Waters towers, which have commenced (but then stalled) on site.

Pros:

• Large undeveloped site.

• Adjacent to Merseyrail Northern Line enabling the creation of an interchange station.

• Good road access via Leeds Street.

• Local area ripe for development (Pumpfields).

• Walking distance to Ten Streets and Liverpool Waters.

Cons:

• Approach tracks would require significant tunnelling.

• Relatively remote from the city centre.

This site is less central than Exchange Station but avoids some of the construction issues associated with the former site. However, it is in an area ripe for redevelopment and could become a catalyst for the regeneration of the northern part of the city centre.

4. Clarence Dock

This is a large expanse of land formerly occupied by Clarence Dock power station. It is within the Liverpool Waters redevelopment site.

Pros:

• Existing, undeveloped, waterfront site. Ideal for landmark structure.

• Central to Liverpool Waters development and adjacent to Ten Streets.

• Would stimulate home and office development.

• Easy link to Edge Hill via disused Waterloo Tunnel.

• Reasonable road access.

Cons:

• Site earmarked for Peel Holdings Liverpool Waters development.

• Remote from the Merseyrail network.

This undeveloped plot has the potential to fulfil the ‘stunning gateway’ remit given its location and the space available. Though its position within Liverpool Waters would significantly affect current development plans, placing a new station here could be an incentive for people and offices to locate in the area.

5. Wapping

This is the site of the former Wapping Goods Depot, closed in 1972. It fronts directly onto Wapping.

Pros:

• Large undeveloped site in an area earmarked for development.

• Close to ACC, Exhibition Centre, Albert Dock and Baltic Triangle.

• Easy link to Edge Hill via disused Wapping Tunnel.

• Good road access.

Cons:

• Catering for 400m long trains would require significant property demolition and alterations to the historic Wapping Tunnel.

• Remote from Merseyrail network.

Again, a site with potential for a ‘stunning gateway’ and in a prominent position in the city centre. It is in an area that has seen considerable development in recent years.

6. Underground

A station constructed in large diameter bored tunnels.

Pros:

• Location not determined by surface geography allowing optimum positioning for economic impact and connectivity.

• Minimal visual intrusion.

• Minimal demolition requirement.

Cons:

• Very high cost given dimensions of HS2 terminus and onerous requirements for sub-surface construction.

• Potential lack of political support from central government due to cost.

• Existing underground infrastructure would restrict location and constructability.

• Difficulty of providing an ‘architecturally stunning gateway’.

To construct a station on the scale required for HS2 / NPR would be a major feat of engineering given the size of the tunnels required. It would, probably, be ruled out on price but could be considered if other cheaper alternatives prove impractical.

7. Edge Hill

The most obvious site for this station would be to the north of Edge Hill Station, adjacent to Wavertree Road, a site currently occupied by retail units. Another possibility would be to the south of the station on the site of the former Spekeland Sidings.

Pros:

• Cheaper construction due to removal of the need to build in the city centre.

• Good connections to LCR road network via M62 and Queens Drive.

• Potential Merseyrail connections via Wapping and Waterloo tunnels.

• Adjacent to Knowledge Quarter, Wavertree Technology Park and Littlewoods Studios.

• Area has potential for regeneration.

Cons:

• Remote from city centre – most journeys will require an onward trip to destination.

• Success would depend on further public transport investment.

• Too ‘out of town’ to have a major economic impact.

Edge Hill is close to the centre of Liverpool and would be accessible to a large part of the population by both road and rail. However, most passengers using the station would need to change onto another form of transport to access locations in the city centre. It would be a cheap option and worth considering.

And Finally…

The above is by no means an exhaustive list and it will be interesting to see what options the Station Commission identify. What I hope this proves is that there are several sites, all of which fulfil part of the station remit but fall short in other respects. There is no perfect choice that ticks all boxes. The final decision will depend to a large extent on what qualities are deemed most important. An ‘architecturally stunning’ gateway may not have good regeneration potential or connectivity. Other solutions may be well connected with a strong case for economic impact but come at the expense of unacceptable levels of demolition and dislocation.

The final selection of a station site will take a great deal of study and will need to address far more parameters than I have listed. We need to be aware that the likelihood of a Liverpool HS2 / NPR station being built will depend to a large extent on continual government commitment to the North of England and the Liverpool City Region. However, it is by no means simply wishful thinking given the size and economic importance of this area.

Rail investment tends to last for a very long time – Liverpool Lime Street has been around for the best part of two centuries. To get this decision right, we need this city to think big. To put aside political expediency and narrow commercial interests. It’s time to think long term with an eye to those future generations of Liverpolitans who will take our region forward. Let’s remember that the Railway Age began in Liverpool and it is far from over yet.

Martin Sloman is a civil engineer and former railway consultant. He is an active member of the ‘20 Miles More’ lobby group.

Share this article