My idea for an alternative to High Speed Two

[southern442]

The efficiencies of a higher speed, higher capacity solution would almost certainly lead to lower fares, at least in real terms, in time.

The government have wasted billions of pounds just by having a natter about the whole situation. I predict that by the time HS2 is (if at all) built, it will have costed at least 100 billion. The fares would be sky-high, and if the current political stance is anything to go by, will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

 

[The Planner]

I predict that by the time HS2 is (if at all) built, it will have costed at least 100 billion. The fares would be sky-high, and if the current political stance is anything to go by, will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

It will get built, it is too far down the road now in the process to get canned.

 

[HSTEd]

I predict that by the time HS2 is (if at all) built, it will have costed at least 100 billion. The fares would be sky-high, and if the current political stance is anything to go by, will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

But sky high fairs would not maximise returns.
Because noone would use it - the best way to make money on these schemes is to pile it high and sell it cheap.

The line will already have been built at this point.

 

[Haydn1971]

But sky high fairs would not maximise returns.

Because noone would use it - the best way to make money on these schemes is to pile it high and sell it cheap.

Exactly, fares will be maintained at a competitive price point

 

[The Ham]

The government have wasted billions of pounds just by having a natter about the whole situation. I predict that by the time HS2 is (if at all) built, it will have costed at least 100 billion. The fares would be sky-high, and if the current political stance is anything to go by, will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

What should we have done instead?

Bear in mind that passenger numbers were required to grow by 2.5% per year to justify the construction of HS2, meaning that by 2037 passenger numbers would grow by about double (+100%) from the 2009 base year. Yet, since 2009 the 6 years of growth (about 20% if the time) we have seen passenger growth has gone up by about 30% already.

However between 2009 and now there's been very little in the way of rail improvements. As once the franchises start to make some big changes and Thameslink and Crossrail are opened we could see sufficient increase passenger numbers at least well above the 2.5% growth rate and possibly above the current growth rate. As such it is unlikely that the growth rate will tale off any time soon.

If the growth rate remains higher than the 2.5%, at say 4%, we could reach +100% by 2027. Meaning that the traditional anti HS2 methods of providing the required capacity will run into trouble part way through CP7.

 

[Haydn1971]

What should we have done instead?

Come on now, we all know the solution is to hide our heads in the sand, cancel HS2, don't even think about HS3 or what ever its name is this year, deploy all the Mk2 & Mk3 carriages that are laying around doing nothing and bingo !

On a realistic note, we are on the cusp of a revolution in rail travel, high speed rail, Crossrail 1 & 2, other new lines, new rolling stock on each new franchise, electrification, wide scale wifi deployment, electronic ticketing... The future looks very exciting to me.

 

[The Ham]

On a realistic note, we are on the cusp of a revolution in rail travel, high speed rail, Crossrail 1 & 2, other new lines, new rolling stock on each new franchise, electrification, wide scale wifi deployment, electronic ticketing... The future looks very exciting to me.

Indeed it does, if you told people in the 1980's the level of improvements (ignoring Wi-Fi as that may take a bit of explaining as the internet was pretty much for research and big businesses) excluding HS2 they would have struggled to believe that rail travel would be so popular.

Even at the start of privatisation the level of investments (from both sides of the fence) would have appeared fantastical.

 

[Haydn1971]

Indeed it does, if you told people in the 1980's the level of improvements (ignoring Wi-Fi as that may take a bit of explaining as the internet was pretty much for research and big businesses)

I had a smile with this one, for big business, read "US Government" - it's hard to believe that "the Internet" of sorts was around in the 80's whilst we were struggling with tiny floppy disks and such - I wonder how the old boys in the US Government now feel about opening up the purely Cold War communications system ARPANET to academia and ultimately roll their eyes at the creation of the World Wide Web that's led us to a means of recruiting terrorists on their jihads ! Anyways, back to trains ! I don't really want wifi, I just want my mobile phone to have a signal across most of the network.

 

[najaB]

I had a smile with this one, for big business, read "US Government"

Well, big businesses with DoD contracts.

Anyways, back to trains ! I don't really want wifi, I just want my mobile phone to have a signal across most of the network.

I've always wondered if electrification doesn't present an opportunity to do something about that - there's a lot of masts being planted and wires being run... pico-cells anyone?

 

[The Ham]

I had a smile with this one, for big business, read "US Government" - it's hard to believe that "the Internet" of sorts was around in the 80's whilst we were struggling with tiny floppy disks and such - I wonder how the old boys in the US Government now feel about opening up the purely Cold War communications system ARPANET to academia and ultimately roll their eyes at the creation of the World Wide Web that's led us to a means of recruiting terrorists on their jihads ! Anyways, back to trains ! I don't really want wifi, I just want my mobile phone to have a signal across most of the network.

Of course it does depend on when in the 80's, and which organisations. As some commercial research companies were on board at about the same time as the universities.

 

[southern442]

What should we have done instead?

I think that we do need a new mainline in the UK, but I don't think that this new mainline should be HS2. It should be one that allows local stoppers, outer suburban commuter trains and high speed expresses, so that it serves more places. It would probably be of a similar cost (possibly cheaper) but you would get so much more revenue because it wouldn't just be used by people going from London-Birmingham. With more people using it, it wouldn't just have a greater economic benefit, it would have an environmental benefit, as it would (maybe not to the point of converting the M40 into single carriageway or something like what I said earlier) but it would decrease road usage on major roads in the area, as people living in London, Birmingham and everywhere in between could just use the train, and there would be many more journey opportunities.

I am not opposed to HS3 as one might think. I think that the idea of a high-speed rail line in the north could have some great benefits, and it will keep them happy up north . I also think itis vital for having a decent express service in the north considering the mainlines in the northern counties are nowhere near as well-structured as they are in the south.

 

[Haydn1971]

but you would get so much more revenue because it wouldn't just be used by people going from London-Birmingham.

You are aware that HS2 effectively replaces most of the long distance travel on the ECML, WCML, the top end of the MML, the Chiltern Lane and numerous XC services ? Essentially anyone travelling between Greater London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle City Regions, plus East Midlands, Cheshire, York, North Lancashire, Scotland and numerous other places will transfer to HS2. That leaves the existing mainlines that are currently full of express trains but have lots of commuter belt living for all of the above to become more useful for short to medium distance travel.

 

[southern442]

You are aware that HS2 effectively replaces most of the long distance travel on the ECML, WCML, the top end of the MML, the Chiltern Lane and numerous XC services ?

Not necessarily. In theory, it would, but the fares on HS2 will be so expensive that most people will continue to use these lines.

And yes, the fares on HS2 will be expensive. As I said before, ridiculous amounts of money have been wasted on the government merely having a natter about the situation. When it opens the prices will have to be very high just to break even, and then because we live in a capitalist society whoever operates the service won't reduce the fares. Take the Cable Car in London as an example of this.

 

[HSTEd]

Not necessarily. In theory, it would, but the fares on HS2 will be so expensive that most people will continue to use these lines.

Thus causing HS2 to have little traffic on it and require enormous subsidy. Why would they do this?

And yes, the fares on HS2 will be expensive. As I said before, ridiculous amounts of money have been wasted on the government merely having a natter about the situation. When it opens the prices will have to be very high just to break even, and then because we live in a capitalist society whoever operates the service won't reduce the fares.

If this is a capitalist society then they will want to maximise their return on their investment.
It wil be cheaper to move a passenger from London to Birmingham on HS2 than it is to move them on either the WCML or the Chiltern Main line due to a variety of efficiencies that I have gone in to so many times I can scarcely be bothered to do it again.
It is therefore in the government's, and the industry's interest, to move as much traffic as physically possible off of the classic lines and onto HS2.
That way the existing operators, which are currently drowning in subsidies, can see reduced operations and thus reducing the physical subsidy required.
The easiest way to do this is to set HS2 fares at a lower level than classic fares.

The paths will also be reassigned by people screaming for more suburban services. So they won't even be available for use on an open access basis - if they made money, which they don't.

Take the Cable Car in London as an example of this.

The london cable car is not a serious transport method, its a tourist trap.
Anyone serious just takes the DLR for a fraction of the money.

 

[Haydn1971]

Not necessarily. In theory, it would, but the fares on HS2 will be so expensive that most people will continue to use these lines.

There is no evidence to suggest this at all - the purpose of HS2 as I stated is to free up the existing mainlines, thus pricing will in general reflect this, making it more costly to use the existing mainlines. A vanity cable car project in London is no benchmark to base this assertion on.

 

[The Ham]

Not necessarily. In theory, it would, but the fares on HS2 will be so expensive that most people will continue to use these lines.

And yes, the fares on HS2 will be expensive. As I said before, ridiculous amounts of money have been wasted on the government merely having a natter about the situation. When it opens the prices will have to be very high just to break even, and then because we live in a capitalist society whoever operates the service won't reduce the fares. Take the Cable Car in London as an example of this.

The HS2 model was based on existing ICWC ticket prices with 2.5% growth (no extra growth above this even when HS2 starts to open). As such given that it is likely that we are going to hit or exceed the passenger numbers before each phase of HS2 opens there will be no need to sell high cost tickets to cover the costs.

If phase 1 opens with more passengers than predicted then there is scope to offer cheaper fares to try and attract new customers. Given that we now know that Phase 2a opens only one year after phase 1 then if anything the business case will get better still.

Also, HS2 assumed that London Birmingham passenger numbers would grow at something like 1.25%. Which would allow for some people taking a slower and (in theory) cheaper train (akin to using LM vs VT).

Although if the existing expresses slowed down a little but adding in a few more stops and by switching to 110mph stock then the difference could be more than is currently quoted. As why would the services in the current line continue to run non stop between Birmingham and London when there isn't that market so much and there are fairly major towns and Cities for which they could tap into the market for.

For instance if the current services called at Coventry then few are going to travel up to Birmingham to travel down on HS2 (unless they want to) as it would likely take longer and likely cost more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
... Also labs costs in towns are higher than open country side, meaning any new line would want to bypass as many towns as possible otherwise it could make it a lot more expensive.

 

[HSTEd]

It is entirely possible that the fastest route from Coventry to London might be to double back at Birmingham International.

At which point I expect people to do that because it will be in the states interest to encouage them to do so.

 

[The Ham]

It is entirely possible that the fastest route from Coventry to London might be to double back at Birmingham International.

At which point I expect people to do that because it will be in the states interest to encouage them to do so.

...although it does depend on train departure times and change times and the amount of time saved. Of course there are always those that will try and limit the number of changes that they make.

 

[southern442]

There is no evidence to suggest this at all - the purpose of HS2 as I stated is to free up the existing mainlines, thus pricing will in general reflect this, making it more costly to use the existing mainlines. A vanity cable car project in London is no benchmark to base this assertion on.

That would put all the other intercity routes out of business would it not? Would we not have just spent loads on new IEP trains with the knowledge no-one will be using them in 5-10 years time? Making a less attractive option more expensive won't 'free up' the mainlines, it will cause the intercity operators to start making a loss!

And do you really think that HS2's fares will be cheap? It will have overseas shareholders to pay off!

The only way it would work is if the railways were nationalised.

 

[class26]

That would put all the other intercity routes out of business would it not? Would we not have just spent loads on new IEP trains with the knowledge no-one will be using them in 5-10 years time? Making a less attractive option more expensive won't 'free up' the mainlines, it will cause the intercity operators to start making a loss!


The only way it would work is if the railways were privatized.

They are !

 

[southern442]

They are !

I'm really not on the ball tonight I have edited the post, so hopefully you get my point now. With nationalization you could have one part of the network paying for another part of the network etc.

 

[The Planner]

HS2 is a PLC? Missed the share offer on that one!

 

[Haydn1971]

That would put all the other intercity routes out of business would it not? Would we not have just spent loads on new IEP trains with the knowledge no-one will be using them in 5-10 years time? Making a less attractive option more expensive won't 'free up' the mainlines, it will cause the intercity operators to start making a loss!

HS2 will be a step change, but IEP/AT300 and the 390 fleets will be still be very much needed post HS2 - It's very likely that we will see the HS2 Classic Compatible fleet ordered early (maybe 2022-24) to run on existing mainlines with a ready solution to run post 2026 once the first stages of HS2 open, building up with captive units to ramp up the service. The AT300 fleet can go anywhere, I'd expect an order of driving cars just before HS2 goes live, allowing a new fleet of shorter AT300 units that can use the existing mainlines in a way that services HS2, replacing the 22x Voyager/Meridian fleets that will be near life expired as EDMU's. The AT300's will then join whatever new stock gets ordered to augment the current XC and WCML fleets.

And do you really think that HS2's fares will be cheap? It will have overseas shareholders to pay off!

And that is different to the current railways how ?

The only way it would work is if the railways were privatized.

Privatised or public - doesn't matter, the economic gains delivered by HS2 will ultimate pay for the project.

 

[po8crg]

That would put all the other intercity routes out of business would it not? Would we not have just spent loads on new IEP trains with the knowledge no-one will be using them in 5-10 years time?

2033 isn't 5-10 years away, it's 17. Or about halfway through the life of the IEPs. The only trains that would be affected before 2033 are 390s, which won't exactly be new trains by the mid-2020s.

There are plenty of secondary long-distance routes for which the released IEPs and 390s will be ideal - routes in Scotland (390s would be great for the Highland Main Line, and it should be electrified right about then), the Midland and Great Eastern routes, perhaps reinforcing some of the Great Western with extra IEPs, Cross Country, the Liverpool/Manchester routes on WCML operated by TPE. Those trains won't be short of users.

And do you really think that HS2's fares will be cheap? It will have overseas shareholders to pay off!

It will charge what people will pay. They'd rather sell off cheap fares in the middle of the day and in the evenings than run empty trains around the country, just the same as Virgin do now. I'm sure that a 07:20 departure from Manchester to London on a weekday will involve paying an arm and a leg, but if you want to catch an 11:30 train it will be a different story. But that's no different from today, where an anytime return is £332.

 

[southern442]

2033 isn't 5-10 years away, it's 17. Or about halfway through the life of the IEPs.

So your point is that they will have seen use for half of their life so it will be alright that they won't be used by this point?

There are plenty of secondary long-distance routes for which the released IEPs and 390s will be ideal - routes in Scotland (390s would be great for the Highland Main Line, and it should be electrified right about then),

Would they really be great for this line? 140MPH, 11-car trains?

It will charge what people will pay. They'd rather sell off cheap fares in the middle of the day and in the evenings than run empty trains around the country, just the same as Virgin do now.

Will this pay off £80 billion?

 

[The Ham]

HS2 will be a step change, but IEP/AT300 and the 390 fleets will be still be very much needed post HS2 - It's very likely that we will see the HS2 Classic Compatible fleet ordered early (maybe 2022-24) to run on existing mainlines with a ready solution to run post 2026 once the first stages of HS2 open, building up with captive units to ramp up the service. The AT300 fleet can go anywhere, I'd expect an order of driving cars just before HS2 goes live, allowing a new fleet of shorter AT300 units that can use the existing mainlines in a way that services HS2, replacing the 22x Voyager/Meridian fleets that will be near life expired as EDMU's. The AT300's will then join whatever new stock gets ordered to augment the current XC and WCML fleets.

AT300's will still be needed on the GWML, so chances are there'll be a unit swap to enable 5 coach sets to be used elsewhere.

Also, post HS2 on the ECML there's still going to be people travelling between places either side of Leeds/York who will still need to get about. Likewise for a lot of places on the network all HS2 does is gets them more capacity. Then there are the people who will want to catch a train to get to a HS2 station.

From now until HS2 is fully open passenger numbers could still double if we continue with 4% growth per year. The AT300's get us something like 20% (so potentially 1/10 of what will be needed to cope with passenger growth).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So your point is that they will have seen use for half of their life so it will be alright that they won't be used by this point?

However, there will be lots of places along, or just off, the ECML which will still need a service to London for which HS2 isn't going help other than by taking passengers from further afield off their trains.

Would they really be great for this line? 140MPH, 11-car trains?

Well given they don't currently run at 140 mph what difference does that make?

I would argue that it is better to scrap some coaches from them than scrap all the coaches and build a new train of a more suitable length.

Will this pay off £80 billion?

No, but then that's not how the government gets that sort of investment related. Given that during construction the government will be earning tax back on them money that it is paying out it in theory starts paying back while being built.

One person I once overheard saying that their tax that they paid was just paid to them the next month as part of their salary.

 

[Haydn1971]

So your point is that they will have seen use for half of their life so it will be alright that they won't be used by this point?

He didn't actually suggest anything of the sort - with continued passenger growth, new markets will open up for the AT300 units. TPE started with a fleet of 2 and 3 car 90mph 158's, it hired in some 175's, these were replaced by 3 car 185's, then added some 4 car 350's, it's soon to replace a huge portion of the fleet with 5 car 125mph trains. The 158/159 fleet less than a decade left, the 175/180/220/221/222 fleets will be near end of life in 2030 - plenty of scope for IEP cascades to busy routes

Would they really be great for this line? 140MPH, 11-car trains?

Yes, remember the much of the 158/159/175 fleets operate on 125mph mainlines, as does the 180/220/221/222 fleets

Will this pay off £80 billion?

It's not about paying, it's about economic benefits it brings, you invest £60Bn, you get back £120Bn in benefits - it's how transport projects are funded - it's an investment, just like buying a house.

 

[po8crg]

Tilt would be great in the Highlands - lines where faster services would be really useful, but where normal speed improvement works could not be justified. Doing the (pretty minor) tilt adaptations as part of the electrification work would be very smart for the lines north of the Tay - which are currently scheduled for electrification in the 2030s. That would then be a sensible use for some shortened 390s.

More generally, mostly, the top-end main-line trains get moved to secondary routes after about half of their working life. Look at all the Mark 3s that aren't on WCML any more. The Mark 4s and Class 91s aren't going to be scrapped when IEP comes in, but they won't run on ECML either (GEML? MML? who knows?)

So why would it be a surprise that the IEPs/AT300s and the 390s go and head for secondary routes when HS2 arrives?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Will this pay off £80 billion?

No, but it will bring in the maximum revenue that half-empty trains running in off-peak hours can bring in. No-one is expecting to pay off the capital cost of HS2 in fares anyway - if it gets paid off directly at all, it will be through the increased tax revenue from the increases in land values and the increases in economic activity.

Unlike some here, I expect peak-time short-notice fares (today's Anytime Single and Anytime Return) to go up for HS2. If you want to be in London for 9am, you can either get a 7:40 on HS2 from Manchester, or a 6:40 on WCML. That 7:40 will be able to charge a premium over the £332 return that Virgin currently charges.

But the rest of the fare structure is set because people won't get off-peak trains unless they're cheap - so any HS2 operator will have to sell those tickets at the same prices as current off-peak advances.

 

[quantinghome]

Unlike some here, I expect peak-time short-notice fares (today's Anytime Single and Anytime Return) to go up for HS2. If you want to be in London for 9am, you can either get a 7:40 on HS2 from Manchester, or a 6:40 on WCML. That 7:40 will be able to charge a premium over the £332 return that Virgin currently charges.

It's an interesting point. However, I think that HS2 will actually open a lot more capacity at peak times, and not just because the trains have more seats. Taking your example, at present there are only a limited number of trains that will get you from Manchester to London by 9am, constrained by the journey time and the reluctance to start a journey very early in the morning. However, the quicker journey time on HS2 means there will be more trains setting off at a reasonable time which get into London by 9am. Assuming 3 services an hour and an hour knocked off the journey by HS2, that's 3 additional trains which people could catch without getting out of bed any earlier than at present. The resulting spread in demand, plus higher capacity trains, would see peak fares drop.

 

[po8crg]

It'll be interesting to see what the pricing system is like, but I'd guess that the 0640 HS2 will be cheaper than the current 0640 Virgin (plus inflation), but the 0740 HS2 will be more expensive.