Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Probably vs roughly 2.5m by train in 2024/25 from London-Edinburgh Waverley including a reasonable share (half) of the Scotland-South East/East Traffic.
Would give rail a roughly 45% share to London and surrounds.
Here's a thought, from the Strasbourg-Paris train I'm on as I write. 1h46m for over 270 miles non stop (and full to capacity).
This equates to around 2h30m London-Edinburgh, by rail. Okay, so this is never going to happen in my lifetime, but IF it was a reality, I do wonder what would be the modal split then?
Similarly, London-Newcastle in 1h45m?
Here's a thought, from the Strasbourg-Paris train I'm on as I write. 1h46m for over 270 miles non stop (and full to capacity).
This equates to around 2h30m London-Edinburgh, by rail. Okay, so this is never going to happen in my lifetime, but IF it was a reality, I do wonder what would be the modal split then?
Similarly, London-Newcastle in 1h45m?
3.40 (3.30 from OOC) is still pretty good and would result in a big market share transfer for both Edinburgh and Glasgow. 3.06 from Interchange and 3.20 from Curzon Street would largely eliminate the Birmingham Airport-Central belt flights.
As a regular on the Bristol-Glasgow easyJet route 3.06 from Birmingham Exchange to Glasgow would be better than Bristol because of the access issues to Bristol. Then it would just come down to cost/car parking.
If the rationale for very high speed was to displace flights to/from Scotland then it should have been seen as unaffordable from the outset. And some displacement could have been achieved by incremental improvements, particularly to the ECML, at far, far lower costs.
I don't believe that was the main rationale for high speed. Displacing flights from Scotland was rather one of a number of perceived benefits of going for very high speed. Other (and probably more important) benefits were: Higher speed means quicker round trips so you need fewer trains and fewer staff to run the same level of service. You're more likely to persuade motorists to swap to train for London/Birmingham/Manchester/etc. journeys. And it seemed more like better future proofing if you want HS2 to still be usable without major rebuilds in 50 or 100 years' time, when typical speeds will presumably be higher than today. Given that it was believed by the experts that building for high speed wouldn't add that much cost compared to building the same railway for a lower speed, building for high speed would've made sense. Being better able to displace flights to/from Scotland was more like, a cherry on top of that.
I don't believe that was the main rationale for high speed. Displacing flights from Scotland was rather one of a number of perceived benefits of going for very high speed. Other (and probably more important) benefits were: Higher speed means quicker round trips so you need fewer trains and fewer staff to run the same level of service. You're more likely to persuade motorists to swap to train for London/Birmingham/Manchester/etc. journeys. And it seemed more like better future proofing if you want HS2 to still be usable in 50 or 100 years' time, when typical speeds will presumably be higher than today. Given that it was believed by the experts that building for high speed wouldn't add that much cost compared to building the same railway for a lower speed, building for high speed would've made sense. Being better able to displace flights to/from Scotland was more like, a cherry on top of that.
Doing London Manchester in 1h30 rather than 1h10 isn’t going to make an enormous difference to your staffing levels or train sets required. Especially when offset against increased passenger numbers.
1h30 with a 30 minute turnaround at each end would need 12 and 1h10 with the same turnaround would need 10.
Doing London Manchester in 1h30 rather than 1h10 isn’t going to make an enormous difference to your staffing levels or train sets required. Especially when offset against increased passenger numbers.
It reduces the amount of staff-time and unit-time per passenger-km. Extra passengers are a positive, not a negative, as you appear to be saying.
In all public transport, costs are typically with time, as having a train/bus/other vehicle and the staff to run it are usually the major cost. Income, in contrast, tends to go with distance travelled. Passenger-kms are a reasonably good approximation of fare income, for example. So increasing speed typically improves the ratio of fare income to operating expenses.
So if as above you get say 5m passengers from doing London to Manchester and need 10 train sets to serve them then to add another 4 stops at 5 minutes a stop you’d need to only add a million net passengers between all four stations to have the same staffing/trainsets per passenger.
And assuming you followed a similar pattern to today you could probably stop at 10 or so intermediate stations with one service an hour at each so they’d only need net 100k each.
They do and they don't, technology change is normally the point at which a lot of existing paradigms get undone. In mature markets you get out sourcing and horizontal integration, this produces efficiency but restricts the ability to change things. When you change technology you need vertically integrated companies as you can't go out and buy the technology you need.
To look at an example, the Tesla Model S came out in 2012 and it took the best part of 10 years for other manufacturers to copy the integrated control system with over the air updates (que, "I don't like touch screens", not the point of this argument). They developed this system despite being a relatively under resourced start up. They had to be vertically integrated because they needed to build their own motors, batteries and control systems and they could innovate on the cars UI because they didn't need to fit in with a sprawling supply chain, multiple vehicle platforms and a sprawling list of stakeholders.
In the case of electric aircraft you have a vehicle that is cheap to run, quiet and short ranged. They are going to be under 20 seats for the short to medium term, this means that the security requirements are currently pretty light and if we decide to increase them we are going to be doing so from a technology heavy clean sheet. There is a pretty good chance that the builder of the aircraft will also be the operator and will own or control the airport. The airport will be small, purpose built and closer to where people live (achievable because the aircraft are quieter).
So if as above you get say 5m passengers from doing London to Manchester and need 10 train sets to serve them then to add another 4 stops at 5 minutes a stop you’d need to only add a million net passengers between all four stations to have the same staffing/trainsets per passenger.
Yes if you're going from 1 hr 10 mins + 30 mins turnaround to 1 hr 30 mins + 30 mins turnaround, then yes I believe your calculation is correct for paying for staff/train times. The problem is that slowing down the London-Manchester journeys means you lose London-Manchester passengers, so the number of new passengers you need to find is actually one million PLUS however many London-Manchester ones you've lost. Actually even more than that because the new passengers you're gaining are presumably travelling shorter distances so paying lower fares. That's going to be tough to achieve given that there aren't 4 cities along the HS2 route with anything like the populations of London or Manchester
And assuming you followed a similar pattern to today you could probably stop at 10 or so intermediate stations with one service an hour at each so they’d only need net 100k each.
I would suggest the only way you're going to find 10 intermediate places worth stopping at between London and Manchester is by running up the existing WCML - so you can stop at places like Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby. So that's not an HS2 service so doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. (As an aside, I imagine being able to provide that kind of service along the WCML will be one of the benefits of HS2, once the fastest services are on HS2 so not competing for paths along the southern WCML)
I don't believe that was the main rationale for high speed. Displacing flights from Scotland was rather one of a number of perceived benefits of going for very high speed. Other (and probably more important) benefits were: Higher speed means quicker round trips so you need fewer trains and fewer staff to run the same level of service. You're more likely to persuade motorists to swap to train for London/Birmingham/Manchester/etc. journeys. And it seemed more like better future proofing if you want HS2 to still be usable without major rebuilds in 50 or 100 years' time, when typical speeds will presumably be higher than today. Given that it was believed by the experts that building for high speed wouldn't add that much cost compared to building the same railway for a lower speed, building for high speed would've made sense. Being better able to displace flights to/from Scotland was more like, a cherry on top of that.
In the case of travel between London and Birmingham/Manchester, I imagine growing the market between the citie, and thus economic growth was the main aim.
Similarly, the aim of the Northern Powerhouse rail upgrades is to ultimately increase economic activity between the Northern Cities through faster and better rail connections, leading to more growth and prosperity.
Thats why you need to clear in mind the different geographies, as I mentioned above. England is already compact, so the French rationale will not apply.
THE UNITED KINGDOM is long and thin. France is wider so the length is not so easy to compare with the UK. France is predominantly a lower population density because it is a larger geographical area - not just all because of length but also width.
Views will vary of course. I’d go first for a package of smaller scale capacity enhancements - longer trains, particularly Cross Country and some Northern routes, with associated platform extensions. Then more extensive and expensive some work at pinch points - maybe Watford, Coventry-Birmingham, expand Moor Street and enhance the London service (and perhaps add a northbound link) to take pressure off New Street. But there will be lots of other, perhaps better ideas.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sure, but the whole point is that the benefits to Scottish trips are small in the context of overall costs - you need a case that is strong in other respects. And it isn’t there.
But the overall costs are not just for London to the Central belt of Scotland. Most of the costs for HS2 are justified for London to the West Midlands and Manchester etc. Places further North help to justify the minor extra cost of building a 400km/h capable line over a 300km/h line. Building HS2 Phase2a to the same spec benefits all. Need to look at the big picture.
Doing London Manchester in 1h30 rather than 1h10 isn’t going to make an enormous difference to your staffing levels or train sets required. Especially when offset against increased passenger numbers.
1h30 with a 30 minute turnaround at each end would need 12 and 1h10 with the same turnaround would need 10.
With a dedicated route into Manchester (on top of phase 2a) would make turn around times needed shorter. If we reduced turn around times from 30 minutes (quite long) to 20 minutes that is a saving of another train. So would need 9 trains instead of 12 - a 25% reduction.
Squeezing turnaround down to 10 minutes would result in a 33% saving on trains.
Yes if you're going from 1 hr 10 mins + 30 mins turnaround to 1 hr 30 mins + 30 mins turnaround, then yes I believe your calculation is correct for paying for staff/train times. The problem is that slowing down the London-Manchester journeys means you lose London-Manchester passengers, so the number of new passengers you need to find is actually one million PLUS however many London-Manchester ones you've lost. Actually even more than that because the new passengers you're gaining are presumably travelling shorter distances so paying lower fares. That's going to be tough to achieve given that there aren't 4 cities along the HS2 route with anything like the populations of London or Manchester
I would suggest the only way you're going to find 10 intermediate places worth stopping at between London and Manchester is by running up the existing WCML - so you can stop at places like Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby. So that's not an HS2 service so doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. (As an aside, I imagine being able to provide that kind of service along the WCML will be one of the benefits of HS2, once the fastest services are on HS2 so not competing for paths along the southern WCML)
Exactly. The whole point of HS2 was to get away from a line and route cluttered with intermediate stops.
There are not many places to stop on the route of phase 1 and that is deliberate.
I cannot believe we are still having to explain to people that the point of the route was to avoid unwanted intermediate stops. The big picture.
Given this thread is about HS2 Phase 2a it makes sense that it follows the same philosophy as the bit it is intended to add to - Phase 1.
BUT the debate should be over how to do it sensibly and not over expensive. Also how to get public/government opinion behind it.
For me I believe Phase 2a will be a lot cheaper per mile due to an established workforce and no really dramatic bits of civil engineering. We have done the hardest bit first (unfortunately) but that is because it was the end that covers the most journeys.
To be fair, Watford isn't a pinch point now, but isn't there a chance it might become one if there was a serious desire to stop many more Avanti trains there? And that would seem a reasonable thing to want to do once HS2 is running.
For me I believe Phase 2a will be a lot cheaper per mile due to an established workforce and no really dramatic bits of civil engineering. We have done the hardest bit first (unfortunately) but that is because it was the end that covers the most journeys.
20 minutes or a little less is roughly what the Shinkansen manages with full grade separation and Japanese reliability. The 12:24 from Tokyo going south for example arrives in at 12:06.
So going at or below that is brave to say the least.
Tokyo station is also elevated unlike Euston so you board from the middle. That helps make boarding more efficient.
20 minutes or a little less is roughly what the Shinkansen manages with full grade separation and Japanese reliability. The 12:24 from Tokyo going south for example arrives in at 12:06.
So going at or below that is brave to say the least.
Tokyo station is also elevated unlike Euston so you board from the middle. That helps make boarding more efficient.
That could be achieved at Euston. To get a concourse over the centre of the platforms (both HS2 and existing). Easiest way would be to lengthen the platforms Southwards towards the Euston road and then re-build the ticket hall vcurrently just under the existing concourse and the escalators to the much lower corridor. Put them in front of the suburban platforms (roughly platforms 8-11). Concourse on top linked to StPancras and Kings Cross. But thats for another thread.
They do and they don't, technology change is normally the point at which a lot of existing paradigms get undone. In mature markets you get out sourcing and horizontal integration, this produces efficiency but restricts the ability to change things. When you change technology you need vertically integrated companies as you can't go out and buy the technology you need.
To look at an example, the Tesla Model S came out in 2012 and it took the best part of 10 years for other manufacturers to copy the integrated control system with over the air updates (que, "I don't like touch screens", not the point of this argument). They developed this system despite being a relatively under resourced start up. They had to be vertically integrated because they needed to build their own motors, batteries and control systems and they could innovate on the cars UI because they didn't need to fit in with a sprawling supply chain, multiple vehicle platforms and a sprawling list of stakeholders.
In the case of electric aircraft you have a vehicle that is cheap to run, quiet and short ranged. They are going to be under 20 seats for the short to medium term, this means that the security requirements are currently pretty light and if we decide to increase them we are going to be doing so from a technology heavy clean sheet. There is a pretty good chance that the builder of the aircraft will also be the operator and will own or control the airport. The airport will be small, purpose built and closer to where people live (achievable because the aircraft are quieter).
This may be incredibly naive from my viewpoint but why would we be running any Avanti services along these lines? Surely they’d go once HS2 is up and running?
This may be incredibly naive from my viewpoint but why would we be running any Avanti services along these lines? Surely they’d go once HS2 is up and running?
There would still be demand for express services for places that aren’t getting HS2 services, either due to being bypassed like Coventry or where HS2 trains can’t go such as North Wales. But it would only be a rump compared to the current Avanti service out of Euston, and said services would likely have more stops than today.
There would still be demand for express services for places that aren’t getting HS2 services, either due to being bypassed like Coventry or where HS2 trains can’t go such as North Wales. But it would only be a rump compared to the current Avanti service out of Euston, and said services would likely have more stops than today.
Exactly. I could easily imagine, for example, today's Avanti London-Birmingham services being recast into 2tph Euston - Watford Jct - Milton Keynes - Rugby - Coventry - Bham International - New Street - Wolverhampton. This then provides a much needed better semifast service connecting the major towns along the southern WCML which isn't possible today. And you'll see something similar for trains along the Trent Valley to Liverpool/Manchester/Scotland.
This may be incredibly naive from my viewpoint but why would we be running any Avanti services along these lines? Surely they’d go once HS2 is up and running?
To build an airliner I need to design a turbine that operates at 400 degrees hotter than the melting point of the refractory alloy it is made from where each blade (the size of two of your fingers) absorbs more power than an F1 car. This being one of dozens of low volume bespoke miracles that I have to accomplish all while being regulated by one of the harshest regulatory regimes in industry. Yet despite all this on a cost per mile basis this mode of transport is cheaper than using a train to the customer despite the railway being subsidised and the aircraft taxed.
Electric aircraft are made from parts derived from consumer electronics and electric vehicles, their fuel is far cheaper than kerosene. They have significantly fewer moving parts and higher levels of redundancy. The early models are already more than cost competitive with liquid fuelled analogues as a mature industry it will absolutely crush conventional aircraft. Now combine the cost argument with the ability to take-off and land vertically or on a short runway with the lower inherent noise of an electric multiple rotor aircraft. You could have a vertiport at most railway locations and at plenty of others, all you need is some space and a utility connection.
So we have something cost competitive with rail at a minimum, quite possibly a lot cheaper that can access a lot of the same spots and goes about 3 times faster on an end to end basis. We are talking about less than 20 seat vehicles that we walk up to on foot, load our own luggage and do security in the most frictionless manner modern IT can provide. The fact that it goes faster means that its likely to induce about 3 times the passenger numbers that rail would do on a comparable route.
I've done a bit of modelling, the interesting finding there is that actually most rail pairs don't have enough traffic to support electric flying at turn up and go levels even once you add in induced demand.
Esther McVey MP objecting to carrying over the HS2a Bill in the Commons, liking continuing to keep it alive, to the dead parrot sketch from Monty Python.
Basically Government is looking to carry over to reuse the bill for parts on ZNPR, Northern Powerhouse Rail, but she wants properties sold off instead.
What Reform might hopefully do is call out the ridiculously high costs of all such projects, not just rail but also road etc. We really do need to focus on why the UK is so hopelessly expensive for all sorts of engineering. But they will be mainly busy getting rid of things like - erm cheap labour. Which would be counter productive.
Esther McVey MP objecting to carrying over the HS2a Bill in the Commons, liking continuing to keep it alive, to the dead parrot sketch from Monty Python.
Basically Government is looking to carry over to reuse the bill for parts on ZNPR, Northern Powerhouse Rail, but she wants properties sold off instead.
Esther McVey MP objecting to carrying over the HS2a Bill in the Commons, liking continuing to keep it alive, to the dead parrot sketch from Monty Python.
Basically Government is looking to carry over to reuse the bill for parts on ZNPR, Northern Powerhouse Rail, but she wants properties sold off instead.
She seems to know more about Monty Python than about the overflowing West Coast Mainline, the need to relieve it and the need to keep the UK economy going..
She seems to know more about Monty Python than about the overflowing West Coast Mainline, the need to relieve it and the need to keep the UK economy going..
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.bbc.co.uk
