Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[Bletchleyite]

Arguably "puts people off" is increasingly materialising as "travelling flexibly to arrive in time for the meeting, working on the way to make use of time in the morning".

Or "you can enjoy a night in London because a hotel and an off peak ticket is cheaper than an Anytime".

 

[matacaster]

How much extra capacity would one get for peanuts if first class was abolished and higher density seating used throughout (as per pacers in North)? Would it cost less than £100b - I'll get my coat!

 

[jfowkes]

How much extra capacity would one get for peanuts if first class was abolished and higher density seating used throughout (as per pacers in North)? Would it cost less than £100b - I'll get my coat!

It would be considerably cheaper, but add considerably less capacity, which will get filled in a few years.

This is another "we could do it anyway, but it's not a substitute for HS2" thing. Like upgraded signalling, adding extra carriages, extending platform etc. It all adds incremental capacity and it's all important, but none of it is a truly massive change.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How much extra capacity would one get for peanuts if first class was abolished and higher density seating used throughout (as per pacers in North)? Would it cost less than £100b - I'll get my coat!

Combining a quick Google with a crude back-of-the-envelope estimate.... For an 11-car pendolino:

• Standard class: 444 seats between 7 carriages. Effectively 6 carriages once you remove buffet, toilets, etc. So 74 seats/full-length carraige
• 1st class: 145 seats between 4 carriages. Effectively 3 carriages allowing for toilets and the long staff area at the end of the train. So 48 seats/full-length carriage.

Current total 589 seats. If you packed those effective 3 1st-class carriages at standard class seat densities, you'd have roughly 9 x 74 - 666 seats, a gain of 13%. Again that's treating 2 carriage-lengths as unavailable for seating, hence saying 9 carriages.

13% is enough to accommodate maybe 3-5 year's growth before you're back where we are today in terms of long distance capacity. But that's only the Avanti trains - doesn't do anything for the LNR commuter trains. Essentially it costs peanuts and gives you peanuts. Certainly not game-changing in the way that HS2 would be. Also worth bearing in mind that people who travel first class have chosen to pay an (often, heavy) premium to travel in extra comfort. It's a safe bet that at least a few of those people would revert to going by car if the train didn't give them that choice? Plus, without those 1st class fares, revenue would reduce somewhat - which even in the privatised railway will eventually feed through to less money for other improvements etc.

 

[Howardh]

Just a hypothetical question - on the grounds that platforms simply wouldn't be long enough (!) - what is the maximum length in terms of coaches that a passenger train going at 120mph+ could possibly be? In other words, I think a pendo is 11 - how long could one actually be in theory?

 

[Bantamzen]

How much extra capacity would one get for peanuts if first class was abolished and higher density seating used throughout (as per pacers in North)? Would it cost less than £100b - I'll get my coat!

If you went for 2*3 seating for long distance services throughout, you'd probably end up driving people back onto the roads / planes which is the exact opposite to what is trying to be achieved, plus in turn would drive more road / airport capacity increases, which could quite quickly eat up your £100bn and a lot more!

Combining a quick Google with a crude back-of-the-envelope estimate.... For an 11-car pendolino:

• Standard class: 444 seats between 7 carriages. Effectively 6 carriages once you remove buffet, toilets, etc. So 74 seats/full-length carraige
• 1st class: 145 seats between 4 carriages. Effectively 3 carriages allowing for toilets and the long staff area at the end of the train. So 48 seats/full-length carriage.

Current total 589 seats. If you packed those effective 3 1st-class carriages at standard class seat densities, you'd have roughly 9 x 74 - 666 seats, a gain of 13%. Again that's treating 2 carriage-lengths as unavailable for seating, hence saying 9 carriages.

13% is enough to accommodate maybe 3-5 year's growth before you're back where we are today in terms of long distance capacity. But that's only the Avanti trains - doesn't do anything for the LNR commuter trains. Essentially it costs peanuts and gives you peanuts. Certainly not game-changing in the way that HS2 would be. Also worth bearing in mind that people who travel first class have chosen to pay an (often, heavy) premium to travel in extra comfort. It's a safe bet that at least a few of those people would revert to going by car if the train didn't give them that choice? Plus, without those 1st class fares, revenue would reduce somewhat - which even in the privatised railway will eventually feed through to less money for other improvements etc.

Not to mention the reduction in revenue from those first class carriages, which would almost certainly be passed onto the passengers. Plus as mentioned above, lose first class & go to higher seating density & many passengers would simply be driven off the rails and onto other modes.

 

[miami]

People abandoning journeys on the wcml from Wolverhampton towards London today because one train was half length. Standing room only before it even got to pick up people at Birmingham, let alone Coventry and beyond, and that's with £200 return tickets.

At the growth rate seen over last 10 years this (crush loading) will be normal by 2033.

If you get 15% extra seats by changing stock this will be normal loading by 2036.

Trains are about 70/100 full now. At current growth rate 100% by 2027

Removing first would mean and adding 3-2 would increase seats by about 45%, meaning full trains by 2034.

So we need to be removing first and changing to 3-2 and building HS2 now.

 

[matacaster]

If you went for 2*3 seating for long distance services throughout, you'd probably end up driving people back onto the roads / planes which is the exact opposite to what is trying to be achieved, plus in turn would drive more road / airport capacity increases, which could quite quickly eat up your £100bn and a lot more!



Not to mention the reduction in revenue from those first class carriages, which would almost certainly be passed onto the passengers. Plus as mentioned above, lose first class & go to higher seating density & many passengers would simply be driven off the rails and onto other modes.

Anyone know what proportion of first class seats used on WCML are at full fare and what full fare first / second class proportion is?

An easy way to 'encourage' business customers to use rail would be to stop car mileage claims for business trips. People would travel less and video conference more.

 

[miami]

An easy way to 'encourage' business customers to use rail would be to stop car mileage claims for business trips. People would travel less and video conference more.

We don't want to encourage business customers to use rail any more than they do because the trains are already full!

 

[Bantamzen]

Anyone know what proportion of first class seats used on WCML are at full fare and what full fare first / second class proportion is?

I couldn't begin to know where to point you on that, but first class services are a integral part of various TOC business models, just as they are with some airlines. Simply ripping them out might not be financially sensible, and as the railways are in the main run for profit you'd have problems forcing that.

An easy way to 'encourage' business customers to use rail would be to stop car mileage claims for business trips. People would travel less and video conference more.

It really wouldn't, the main draw of the railways, especially for first class is that business travellers can work en route. Make that more difficult and they will just drive more and have more overnight stays. Video conferencing is fine some situations, but it doesn't work for many others.

But the bottom line is this. The railway network in general has lacked proper investment for too long, it needs dragging out of the 19th century into the 21st. Aspiring to stop people travelling by train by imposing restrictions on them will simply drive them (quite literally in most cases) elsewhere. Its time for the UK to stop obsessing about the up-front cost, and start properly examining the benefits of investment versus the risks of none going forward for the next few decades. Otherwise, sooner or later, we will find ourselves so unproductive that we fall to third nation status.

 

[Howardh]

Could Avanti make one carriage 3x2 and use that specifically for short-distance travellers eg. Preston - Wigan, Manchester - Stoke etc? So Glasgow/Manchester - Euston tickets wouldn't be valid unless there is overcrowding and pax would rather sit 3x2 for 2hrs rather than stand so the long distance ones become valid?

 

[Esker-pades]

Could Avanti make one carriage 3x2 and use that specifically for short-distance travellers eg. Preston - Wigan, Manchester - Stoke etc? So Glasgow/Manchester - Euston tickets wouldn't be valid unless there is overcrowding and pax would rather sit 3x2 for 2hrs rather than stand so the long distance ones become valid?

What would be the point? An additional 18 seats? In the context of HS2, that's nothing.

 

[Howardh]

What would be the point? An additional 18 seats?

An additional 18 seats for pax who would otherwise be standing with a very expensive ticket?
Would agree though that if there's no seat for a pax then they should have a decent refund, and a smaller refund if they have to sit in a smaller seat. Actually if a 2x3 seat was one-third the price of a standard seat, for a snitch over two hours I'd buy one.

 

[miami]

Avanti (and Virgin before them) barely bother checking tickets, how on earth will you judge a delay repay claim because someone had to sit in a smaller seat?

This is probably the most elaborate plan I've heard to avoid building new tracks.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Could Avanti make one carriage 3x2 and use that specifically for short-distance travellers eg. Preston - Wigan, Manchester - Stoke etc? So Glasgow/Manchester - Euston tickets wouldn't be valid unless there is overcrowding and pax would rather sit 3x2 for 2hrs rather than stand so the long distance ones become valid?

Almost certainly not - at least on the Pendolinos. They are significantly narrower than most trains (they have to be, so they don't collide with oncoming trains when they tilt), so 3+2 seating just wouldn't fit (unless you're proposing exceptionally narrow seats that give people even less space than 3+2 seating on normal commuter trains gives). Also, unlike commuter trains, the Avanti trains have smallish end-of-carriage doors that don't allow people to get on/off as quickly as commuter trains do. So I'm fairly sure that pushing more people into those carriages would have a significant effect on dwell times.

The solution to short-distance travellers really should be additional trains more suited to commuting - but that obviously requires big investment in capacity etc. (Will of course be partly solved if/when HS2 removes many long-distance travellers from the Pendolinos)

 

[quantinghome]

A crude but simple idea to compare the value of HS2 with other rail projects:

Calculate: (Seats per train) x (No. of trains per hour) x (Length of new/restored line) / Project Cost. Higher number shows better bang for your buck.

HS2 comes in at about 90 seat km per hour per £m. By contrast EWR (Western) comes in at 30.

Of course this is a crude way of looking at things, excludes benefits of released capacity on HS2 and under-specification of EWR (lack of electrification). But maybe useful as a first order comparison.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Removing first would mean and adding 3-2 would increase seats by about 45%, meaning full trains by 2034.

3+2 is not a viable option for Pendolinos, they are too narrow. You could I suppose build new stock with short, wide articulated vehicles instead, though (or just something like the Javelin EMUs which are a high speed train with 20m vehicles), but if you're going to spend all that why not spend it on, er, HS2?

 

[miami]

HS2 comes in at about 90 seat km per hour per £m. By contrast EWR (Western) comes in at 30.

So borders line 2tph * 150 * 57km / £300m, so approximately 55?

 

[Sceptre]

https://southeastessex.greenparty.org.uk/news/2018/11/17/green-party-against-lower-thames-crossing/


The difference between this scheme and HS2 is that the objectives have been clearly and consistently stated, and even those who might object in principle can comprehend the argument that additional capacity and resilience is needed to support economic growth.

People can directly see and understand congestion involving cars, vans, and lorries. People don't directly see congestion caused by too many trains - they experience it through unreliability and overcrowded carriages, and blame that on bad management of the railways.

I'm glad to be proved wrong, but I'm still disappointed that national figures such as Lucas, Bennett, Bartley, Berry, or Womack have been incredibly silent on the LTC.

 

[Harold Hill]

First Class by train is agreeable, cattle class not so much. I ride on trains for recreation, it's first class or not at all with me. But, yes, that's just me

 

[Ianno87]

First Class by train is agreeable, cattle class not so much. I ride on trains for recreation, it's first class or not at all with me. But, yes, that's just me

That is a wider factor. Top end business users do pay for the space. Pack them into 3+2 on a Pendolino, and flying it will be.... And only for the benefit of a shot term capacity sticking plaster.

 

[London Trains]

Don't see how, a stop in the down knocks you for 4, 4½ minutes. Taking the standard off peak hour you have
xx.08½ Manchester
xx.13 Edinburgh/Glasgow which stops
xx.28½ Manchester, cannot stop because
xx.31½ Birmingham would catch up,which cannot stop because
xx.35½ Liverpool would catch up
xx.41 Chester which stops
xx.50 Manchester, cannot stop because
xx.55½ Birmmingham/Shrewsbury would catch up, which cannot stop because
xx.59 Glasgow would catch up, which cannot stop every hour because the
xx.04½ Blackpool would catch up, which cannot stop because and so on....
In the other hours where the xx.59 could stop, it is caught by the Birmingham - Scotland at Stafford.

When I say platform rejigging, I meant having 2 platforms for each direction for the Fast Lines, which is possible. Then, all services could stop at MKC, alternating platforms so one service leaves as another enters the other platform. This would require the Watford stop on one of the Birmingham's to be dropped though

 

[Clip]

Or "you can enjoy a night in London because a hotel and an off peak ticket is cheaper than an Anytime".

This is too many of you are focusing on just the headline anytime price.

Ive got to meet a client in Manchester in a couple of weeks on a monday morning and id normally go on the sunday but due to commitments i cant so ive booked 1st class one way and its £101 which is about £30 more than standard and gives me space and a bit of breakfast to prepare. Well worth it

 

[matacaster]

There is an argument that much of the reason for MK's projected growth is that an abundance of train services, mainly to London, will attract more people to MK. It's the same way growth of car travel on motorways is pretty much inevitable until capacity shortage or journey time makes it a non-starter. At the moment, despite people moaning about the cost of a MK - London season ticket, it MUST still be attractive to do so, otherwise people wouldn't do it. If HS2 does not materialise, then I would suggest the expansion of MK will be very much less and travel more likely towards Birmingham. Part of the population growth of MK will be predicated on the assumption that there will be evermore convenient London commuter services. Take that London option away, the car / motorway / parking option isn't going to work if you get loads of extra people on the Motorway just from MK. At present, housebuilders and estate agents see MK as a gravy train as the house prices are still a fraction of those in London. What would happen if MK (and other more southern stations on WCML) commuters were made to pay a greater proportion of the costs which they cause to be incurred as season tickets compared to costs in London are a bit of a bargain - commuting would drop, more space on slow lines for freight?

 

[miami]

If people working in London can't live in Milton Keynes due to increasing commuter prices, then where will they live?

 

[matacaster]

If people working in London can't live in Milton Keynes due to increasing commuter prices, then where will they live?

Good point. You know, the jobs don't always HAVE to be in London. Until some jobs are transferred north, then all that will happen is jobs will be sucked into London. Note that in a survey today London people are most supportive of HS2 - and for very good reason. Jobs can be relocated via grants for firms to move to Birmingham, Coventry etc in Midlands, but also the economic wastelands of the north east, Lancashire and parts of Yorkshire. Remember some people commute long distances TO London, if the jobs are attractive enough and travel times / costs reasonable, they might even travel to say Barnsley! But they can't at present as there are few really good jobs and much of the rail service north of Birmingham is desperately slow and overcrowded. Typical Huddersfield to Barnsley 18.9 miles by road, around 50 minutes by rail - one service per hour.

Indeed why can't some of the relocated jobs be in Milton Keynes?

The macho nonsense of having 09.00 meetings in London is in many cases unnecessary and if essential an overnight stay in London easy enough to arrange. Staggered working hours would smooth the capacity issues.

 

[miami]

Would be lovely if people (like me) worked from home most of the time, and visited different offices on occasion, and didn't need to commute to London

However that's not the world we live in. The world we live in means if you want a good job you need to be in commuting distance of London. That means living in commuting distance from London.

Maybe with Midland Connect and NPR there could be some move away from London and centre on places like Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham. A high speed network treating England as a single economic centre (along the lines of the Greater Tokyo area) could well work. That requires a lot of transport capacity at a high speed, but cities are economic multipliers, and by connecting multiple centres through the country, we avoid a lot of the downside of urbanisation

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is an argument that much of the reason for MK's projected growth is that an abundance of train services, mainly to London, will attract more people to MK. It's the same way growth of car travel on motorways is pretty much inevitable until capacity shortage or journey time makes it a non-starter. At the moment, despite people moaning about the cost of a MK - London season ticket, it MUST still be attractive to do so, otherwise people wouldn't do it. If HS2 does not materialise, then I would suggest the expansion of MK will be very much less and travel more likely towards Birmingham.

I disagree as a resident of 18 years. (That is, I've lived there 18 years, not I am 18...I wish )

While a lot of people in MK do commute to London, MK has, or had when I last heard, a net inbound commuting workforce, that is more people commute in (mostly by car) than commute out. Expansion will increase employment as well - for instance a full sized University is proposed. So while not building HS2 will make London commuting less fun (perhaps timetable recasts will be needed to give more, slower services, for instance, or LO style standee layouts) it will not prevent growth, nor would it cause there to be a sudden shift to commuting to Birmingham.

Part of the population growth of MK will be predicated on the assumption that there will be evermore convenient London commuter services. Take that London option away, the car / motorway / parking option isn't going to work if you get loads of extra people on the Motorway just from MK

Take it away and the coaches would start operating. But why would it be taken away? The services will not be cut, they will be expanded to all 12-car and then just get busier.

At present, housebuilders and estate agents see MK as a gravy train as the house prices are still a fraction of those in London. What would happen if MK (and other more southern stations on WCML) commuters were made to pay a greater proportion of the costs which they cause to be incurred as season tickets compared to costs in London are a bit of a bargain - commuting would drop, more space on slow lines for freight?

That isn't going to happen to just MK - if it did happen, and it's highly unlikely, it would involve ALL season tickets. But if it did happen, what would happen would be people commuting maybe 2-3 days a week. Unfortunately, most likely those will be the same days of the week so the benefit is not gained.

Regarding house prices you're right, though. Rents in MK are typically per month what they would be per week in inner London, and mortgages similar. And I really see no benefit at all of living in zones 3-6 - if you do you barely get a shorter journey yet it's many orders of magnitude grimmer and you pay more for your house.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would be lovely if people (like me) worked from home most of the time, and visited different offices on occasion, and didn't need to commute to London

Are you a professional/office worker? If so, that is entirely feasible, as it's precisely how my job is. I work mostly from home and go down to London perhaps once every week or two, with the occasional full week for workshops when a new project starts.

While there are environmental downsides of that (for instance it's less good on carbon to heat say 30 homes rather than one office, though that'll balance out in summer as homes don't usually have aircon but offices do) if that is considered desirable, and I think it is, the Government could change policy to make employers for whom it's possible move to that method of working. Clearly a cleaner can't do it, nor can anyone working for the secret services or similar, but the vast majority of office workers could at least drop to 2-3 days a week by planning meetings effectively and doing others as online meetings.

Some companies do like people on site so they can watch over them in case they're watching the telly instead of working, but they just need to (a) employ the right staff, and (b) be educated in the benefits.

Maybe with Midland Connect and NPR there could be some move away from London and centre on places like Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham. A high speed network treating England as a single economic centre (along the lines of the Greater Tokyo area) could well work. That requires a lot of transport capacity at a high speed, but cities are economic multipliers, and by connecting multiple centres through the country, we avoid a lot of the downside of urbanisation

Or we have more people home-based and cut the commuting down as above.

 

[sbf kent]

If capacity is the real issue, which I think it is, I still sense that the capacity options have not been given full consideration. Capacity is not a train issue, it is a system issue. In otherwords how can you add capacity to the whole system? this has to be a combination of technology, information, pricing and management. So, what might add capacity?

1. double deck trains - yes I understand the loading guage issue
2. replace trackside signalling with dynamic on train signalling - if you can platoon trucks, why not trains
3. improve station functionaility - make it easier to get on trains, new London Bridge is an example of 'access all platforms' from many points
4. more trains dividing or combining on route - effectively ensuring every train at terminal is full length and full
5. pricing - needs to be more dynamic - something around a 'cost plus' basis, for example travel on a train out of Euston am. base fare £X, but each train is above or below that price
6. more station bypass lines where you need them, basically making the current inflexibility of fast and slow lines redundant

I appreciate this is not a comprehensive list, but applying a systems thinking to more than just one line East Coast, Midland, West Coast and via Banbury might just make a considerable difference?

Access to work whilst on the train making journey time less important? LESS important, reliability and capacity need to be addressed...but please can we consider the Swiss approach, as well we as the French one?