High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Jamesbrown0304]

HS2 has as part of its £50billion cost dedicated £7.5 billion towards rolling stock which doesn't seem to add up to me.

I was under the impression that a carriage cost somewhere between £1m and £1.5m and that a modern train cost about £5m.

Now if i for arguments double what i think the figures are this will still allow us too buy 20 trains at £10m each for £200m and 100 carriages at £3m each for £300m which is only £500m so where is the other £7billion going to be going??

 

[Clip]

As for the increasing use of the rail network, I suspect that is down to a combination of the following;

• Increased fuel prices for motoring
• Increasing road congestion

Cant be for these two reasons as many people would drive rather than take the train according to some posters in this thread. Must not be too expensive or congested for them

 

[Jamesbrown0304]

HS2 has as part of its £50billion cost dedicated £7.5 billion towards rolling stock which doesn't seem to add up to me.

I was under the impression that a carriage cost somewhere between £1m and £1.5m and that a modern train cost less than £5m.

Now if i for arguments sake double what i think the figures are this will still allow us to buy 20 trains at £10m each for £200m and 100 carriages at £3m each for £300m which is only £500m so where is the other £7billion going to be going??

 

[Zoe]

In theory, HS2 should not only provide capacity, it should lead to a reduction (in real terms) in some of the more extortionate fares we see today on the network.

I'm not sure the competition will result in cheaper walk-up fares though. Airlines for example compete on many routes but an on the day fare likely to be unaffordable for many people regardless of which airline they choose to travel on. I'd expect there to be some competition with advance fares though. If for example a classic train has spare capacity between London and Birmingham due to most people choosing to use HS2 due to speed then more rock bottom advance fares could be made available for the classic route.

 

[HSTEd]

The more likely outcome is that the train lengths on the classic routes tend to shrink or the train frequencies reduce further.

HS2 can always cut fares lower than the classic operator (and I believe operational concerns will likely lead to 400m trainsets rather than coupled pairs of 200m captives).

 

[Zoe]

HS2 can always cut fares lower than the classic operator

Why should they though if the market will command a higher price for the high speed route?

 

[HSTEd]

Why should they though if the market will command a higher price for the high speed route?

Because they will have more capacity than they know what to do with.
The marginal cost of providing additional seats out to the capacity limit is so low that they are still better off. (Especially once the DfT realises that reducing the length of classic trains by moving everyone possible off them will leave it better off in subsidy terms).

 

[Zoe]

Because they will have more capacity than they know what to do with.

If you see how busy the M1, M40 and M6 are though, if HS2 takes most of the cars off these routes (and air in the case of Manchester) then I'd have thought the capacity would quickly be filled. Unless there is going to be fares regulation then I'd have thought the plan would be to fill the trains at the highest price the market will bear and it may well be possible to do that without offering very cheap fares.

 

[HSTEd]

If you see how busy the M1, M40 and M6 are though, if HS2 takes most of the cars off these routes (and air in the case of Manchester) then I'd have thought the capacity would quickly be filled.

Capacity to Manchester alone could be ~4000 seats per hour at TGV style seating densities (with 3 services per hour) - although the ratio of second to first would be rather higher thanks to the short travel time.

I can't see that being filled in a reasonable amount of time.

And if it is filled eventually.... then we will need a new high speed line to Leeds or Birmingham to make more paths available won't we

 

[jon0844]

Why should they though if the market will command a higher price for the high speed route?

They might be able to continue charging a lot of money for first class, but I expect the excess capacity will force any operator into offering cheaper standard class tickets or other promotions.

Assuming HS2 is run by another operator, there will also be competition between HS2 and the other line operators - which could also see some interesting deals on things like season tickets.

If you see how busy the M1, M40 and M6 are though, if HS2 takes most of the cars off these routes (and air in the case of Manchester) then I'd have thought the capacity would quickly be filled.

Of course if this does happen and HS2 quickly fills up without releasing capacity on the legacy lines, it will prove that it was needed all along!

 

[Zoe]

Assuming HS2 is run by another operator, there will also be competition between HS2 and the other line operators - which could also see some interesting deals on things like season tickets.

If as is suggested above, HS2 will always be cheaper due to having more capacity then why will anyone choose the classic route? I wonder if season tickets will even exist by the time this is built though. Smartcard ticketing would allow TOCs to charge for individual journeys without people having to queue up every day at the ticket office. Finally is it even certain that HS2 will be run by a single opereator? I'd have thought that the high speed routes would be quite profitable and so the actual operation of the trains could be deregulated with various companies simply buying paths from the infrastructure owner.

 

[HSTEd]

Finally is it even certain that HS2 will be run by a single opereator? I'd have thought that the high speed routes would be quite profitable and so the actual operation of the trains could be deregulated with various companies simply buying paths from the infrastructure owner.

We have been down that road before and the Government apparently decided it didn't want to pursue it any further.

Remember that if this was the case the Classic Compatible services would likely face the chop and be replaced with cheaper to operate and less capital expensive captive shuttle services.

 

[Zoe]

We have been down that road before and the Government apparently decided it didn't want to pursue it any further.

So it has already been confirmed that this will not be an option for HS2 and that there will indeed by a single operator for all services?

 

[Metrailway]

There are other threads to discuss rail fares in detail but I'll come back to this one point again. More people than ever before are using the train. How can it therefore be unaffordable to the average person on the street? No one is suggesting it isn't expensive, but unaffordable to the average person? If it was then surely the number of people using the train would be going down and we wouldn't even need to have this discussion?

So they can afford it? Not easily afford it, and I'm sure they'd prefer it to be cheaper but they sem to be travelling with tickets.

No other choice but to use the train - really?

A) there is absolutely no other alternative available be it private or public transport? Or

B) you are frogmarched from your house at gunpoint and forced upon a train!

Or do you really mean there are other modes of transport readily available but you CHOOSE not to use these due to expense, length of journey compared to the train?

It seems a lot of forum contributors don't understand what a captive market is. Commuters to London are a captive market to rail - there is no reasonable alternative for many commuters to get to work. There is a reason why the Major Government introduced regulated fares as a by-product of privatisation. It is to prevent the TOCs from 'profiteering' from limited choice.

In a 'competitive market' between transport modes, the potential main travel modes for a commuter going to work may be:

1. Walk
2. Bus
3. Train/Underground
4. Light Rail
5. Car/Taxi
6. Cycle

Say I want to travel from Southall to Bank so I arrive by 9am. If I walked it would take around 5 hours to walk 13 miles - clearly not feasible. If I took the bus, I would need to take 3 buses which would take around 2 hours. Cycling would be slightly faster at around 1.5 hours. If I drove to work, it would take over an hour during peak times. If I took the train and then underground it would take about 45 minutes.

So, on journey times alone, the only feasible options for me are the railways, car, and maybe cycling.

However, most people, including I, feel uncomfortable cycling in London due to the lack cycling provision and may not have the energy to cycle 13 miles non-stop. With the car, due to the lack of parking in central London, it is not feasible for me to drive to work in Central London and then park for between 9am to 5pm.

So the only feasible travel option for this journey is the railways. The above situation is repeated for many suburbs, such as Richmond, Croydon, Willesden etc, to City journeys within Greater London. The railway is the only option for many commuters.

One has to remember that the railways are primarily used by people with higher than average salaries. I don't have the figures for commuter travel, but it is estimated that around 50% of all journeys on InterCity trains are undertaken by people living in the top 20% income households.

 

[Ironside]

If as is suggested above, HS2 will always be cheaper due to having more capacity then why will anyone choose the classic route?

The point is that nearly everybody will use high speed trains if their journey is covered by those lines freeing up the trains on the classic lines for people who are traveling to or from a station that is on the classic line but not on HS2, including new cross country routes that have been freed up by removing path hogging non stop intercity trains from the classic lines.

 

[FGW_DID]

They may not be feasible options but they are options! I suppose it depends what somebody wants, a cheaper journey or a speedier journey.

 

[Deerfold]

It seems a lot of forum contributors don't understand what a captive market is. Commuters to London are a captive market to rail - there is no reasonable alternative for many commuters to get to work. There is a reason why the Major Government introduced regulated fares as a by-product of privatisation. It is to prevent the TOCs from 'profiteering' from limited choice.

In a 'competitive market' between transport modes, the potential main travel modes for a commuter going to work may be:

1. Walk
2. Bus
3. Train/Underground
4. Light Rail
5. Car/Taxi
6. Cycle

Say I want to travel from Southall to Bank so I arrive by 9am. If I walked it would take around 5 hours to walk 13 miles - clearly not feasible. If I took the bus, I would need to take 3 buses which would take around 2 hours. Cycling would be slightly faster at around 1.5 hours. If I drove to work, it would take over an hour during peak times. If I took the train and then underground it would take about 45 minutes.

So, on journey times alone, the only feasible options for me are the railways, car, and maybe cycling.

However, most people, including I, feel uncomfortable cycling in London due to the lack cycling provision and may not have the energy to cycle 13 miles non-stop. With the car, due to the lack of parking in central London, it is not feasible for me to drive to work in Central London and then park for between 9am to 5pm.

So the only feasible travel option for this journey is the railways. The above situation is repeated for many suburbs, such as Richmond, Croydon, Willesden etc, to City journeys within Greater London. The railway is the only option for many commuters.

One has to remember that the railways are primarily used by people with higher than average salaries. I don't have the figures for commuter travel, but it is estimated that around 50% of all journeys on InterCity trains are undertaken by people living in the top 20% income households.

I understand quite well.

In your circumstances that's what you choose.

When I was on a very low income (and when I was a student) I used to take some very slow routes to save money - including to get to jobs - including taking as many as 4 buses so I could visit my girlfriend without having to have a rail season ticket as well as a bus one and when shopping, only paying the fare one way (with the shopping) and walking 4 miles the other.

Today many people will not choose the other options as they see them as too much hassle - and now I earn a little more, so do I. I saw them as reasonable routes when I was extremely short of money though.

 

[jones_bangor]

Especially once the DfT realises that reducing the length of classic trains by moving everyone possible off them will leave it better off in subsidy terms

I'm sorry, but that is just bonkers....

Of course, HS2 will never "add up" unless the opposition - WCML, Chiltern and ECML are "hobbled"!!

 

[ash39]

Don't necessarily think £7.5 billion is the correct figure myself, but a couple of things you might not have considered:

* More than 20 trains will be needed for the service patterns proposed

* The figures you are quoting are probably what an electrostar or generic proven design would cost. This would be a bespoke order for rolling stock capable of twice the speed, so all the development and engineering has to be paid for somehow.

 

[Eagle]

Yeah, it's going to be a lot more than just 100 carriages.

 

[HSTEd]

The Birmingham service alone would require at least 6 trainsets (at 3tph).
And if you insist on having double 200m sets instead of single 400m unitary sets that is 12 High Speed trainsets just for that service.

(Since the peak is probably sufficiently long compared to the journey that all the trainsets would have to be strengthenable)

Euroduplex trainsets cost €30 each remember (according to recent SNCF orders), which translates as ~£400m just for Birmingham trains.

Add in Manchester, Leeds and the Classic Compatibles and that price is rather plausible

I'm sorry, but that is just bonkers....

Of course, HS2 will never "add up" unless the opposition - WCML, Chiltern and ECML are "hobbled"!!

HS2 is a cheaper way to move large numbers of people between major cities.
I am sorry if you don't believe it but it simply is.

Putting people travelling between major cities or making journeys with transfers at those cities on the classic line is stupid.
It wastes taxpayers' and farepayers' money.

 

[edwin_m]

Does the price for rolling stock also include the depots to service it?

 

[cjp]

I draw your attention to the BBC's magazine articles of today
there is

HS2: 20 reasons why it can take 20 years to build a railway
which can be found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21231044
and
HS2: 12 arguments for and against
which can be found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24159571

It is all very interesting and worth 15 -20 minutes of your time

but I quite liked this

The most ingenious suggestion - made by think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research - is to reverse the construction phases.

Begin with the V-shaped line linking Manchester and Leeds with Birmingham. London to Birmingham could be added later. It would give the north a head start and counter claims - at least initially - that the line would suck investment to the capital. Temporary upgrades on London commuter lines could be used in the interim to ward off overcrowding. Research last year showed that 89% of plans for investment in transport infrastructure have been allocated to projects in London and the South East. Starting in the north would redress the balance.

Happy reading

 

[tbtc]

Building the least needed part of HS2 first would be a really strange move - you'd have plenty of costs and not tackle the biggest problem.

Might as well suggest that the GWML electrification starts between Bristol and Swindon (and they worry about the Swindon to London bit later)

 

[dggar]

True!

The "broadband" argument really doesn't work for me - I don't know how much faster/ better communications can really get so that there's this magic tipping point where "common or garden" jobs become done from home (ignoring some "creative industry" stuff, at the margins).

We have 4G, we have wireless-everything, we have "video calls" on the phones in most people's pockets, we have secure servers where we could log in and view files... on paper there's no need for most of us to ever enter an office in our life (and certainly no need to commute), yet we seem to be doing so in increasing number.

I'd like to see a Goverment spokesperson say "we're not spending anything on railway investment as you won't need them in twenty years when you are all working from home"...

In view of the activities of NSA and GCHQ are these servers the best place for sensitive or confidential material?

 

[jones_bangor]

HS2 is a cheaper way to move large numbers of people between major cities.
I am sorry if you don't believe it but it simply is.

Putting people travelling between major cities or making journeys with transfers at those cities on the classic line is stupid.
It wastes taxpayers' and farepayers' money.

Hang on...I wasn't aware that taxpayers' money was required for the prime IC services? Aren't they (the operators) meant to be paying the taxpayer for the privilege?

It's HS2 that requires the huge taxpayer subsidy here, and the opposition taken out to ensure the figures stack up!

 

[hick]

Hang on...I wasn't aware that taxpayers' money was required for the prime IC services? Aren't they (the operators) meant to be paying the taxpayer for the privilege?

It's HS2 that requires the huge taxpayer subsidy here, and the opposition taken out to ensure the figures stack up!

All long distance travel is subsidised. Only FCC, Southern and SWT routes made a profit for the government last year

 

[HSTEd]

Hang on...I wasn't aware that taxpayers' money was required for the prime IC services? Aren't they (the operators) meant to be paying the taxpayer for the privilege?

What universe have you been living in?
Virgin is a huge subsidy hog, per passenger mile they come out worse than c2c, East Coast, FGW, FCC, Greater Anglia, Southern and South West Trains.

You may want to believe the tax fraudster when he says he pays money to the state, but he gets it all back and more from the insanely low track access charges levied by NetworK Rail.

HS2 will require subsidy, but per passenger mile it will be drastically lower than any upgrade programme you care to name, unless you simply yank fares up five or ten percent above inflation for a few years to drive down demand.

 

[Tobbes]

but I quite liked this

The most ingenious suggestion - made by think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research - is to reverse the construction phases.

Begin with the V-shaped line linking Manchester and Leeds with Birmingham. London to Birmingham could be added later. It would give the north a head start and counter claims - at least initially - that the line would suck investment to the capital. Temporary upgrades on London commuter lines could be used in the interim to ward off overcrowding. Research last year showed that 89% of plans for investment in transport infrastructure have been allocated to projects in London and the South East. Starting in the north would redress the balance.

Happy reading

It's already been pointed out that the reason to start with London-Birmingham is because HS2 is a capacity scheme, and that's where the capacity need is.

However, DfT would do well to explain why, given the positive BCR, they aren't building the whole Y system (and indeed, heading to Scotland and Newcastle with an HSR) as soon as possible rather than drip feeding it at the rate of £2bn / year. Answers please, DfT.

Tobbes

 

[RichmondCommu]

There are rock bottom advance fares available on many intercity routes (which are very affordable) and you only have to look at an intercity train these days on quite a few routes and see that almost every seat (other than the unreserved coach when there is one) has a reservation card on it (whereas 10 - 15 years ago on some routes you could often find quite a few unreserved seats off peak). Since the widespread introduction of advance fares about 7 - 10 years ago off peak trains have become very busy even though the walk-up fares have significantly increased since this time. This would suggest that people are generally happy to book well in advance and be committed to a specific train in return for a very cheap journey.

I'm sorry Zoë but none of this is any use if you are travelling to London in the Peak. How many rock bottom advance tickets do you see available on an InterCity service that get you into London before say 09.00 on a weekday? Or if you're from the NE before 10.00? Or if you’re unable to plan journeys weeks in advance? It's all very well for you to sit in your Ivory Tower extolling the virtues of advance fares but your ignorance of everybody other than the leisure customer is breathtaking.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So they can afford it? Not easily afford it, and I'm sure they'd prefer it to be cheaper but they sem to be travelling with tickets.

There are people who work for me who have moved further out of London in order to buy house big enough to raise a family. The only way they can afford to travel from for example Leighton Buzzard is to make what many would see as unacceptable financial sacrifices. That in no way suggests that rail travel is affordable because you have to scrimp and save to be able to pay for a season ticket.

Personally I'd argue the affordability of rail travel varies wildly depending what and when you'd travel. My local service into Leeds I'd never consider going by car unless I had to transport something very heavy or bus except for a couple of points on a Sunday when it can sometimes arrive sooner due to the lower frequency of the train service.

Well exactly! Cheap advance fares are of no use if you need to get into town before 09.00 or you need to make travel arrangements with less than four weeks notice. It's a pity that too many forum members are unwilling to accept this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No other choice but to use the train - really?

A) there is absolutely no other alternative available be it private or public transport? Or

B) you are frogmarched from your house at gunpoint and forced upon a train!

Or do you really mean there are other modes of transport readily available but you CHOOSE not to use these due to expense, length of journey compared to the train?

Clearly you have never lived in or commuted to London? It's not practical to drive from Richmond to Bankside and taking the District Line would take far too long. So yes in terms of my commute there are no alternatives. And don't South West trains know it. The trains are over crowded and on the rare occasion that I get a seat they are filthy which means constant trips to the dry cleaners. As for other 'alternatives' being more expensive, are you trying to suggest that commuting into London is cheap?

I'm over in New York at the moment and to be honest the Subway is no better. However it is at least a lot cheaper. Given the choice I would much rather work from home and avoid the expense / aggravation of train travel but that is not practical. Welcome to reality.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be fair he says he lives in richmond so depending on where he works its either train or tube or drive really and given parking charges its really not feasible to do that either. Though he does only pay for 40 weeks if he has an annuall so maybe he forgets that point too.

I concur that by buying an annual season ticket I make a substantial saving but that's still a large amount of money to pay up front. My financial circumstances mean that I don't have to think about it but that is certainly not the case for thousands of others.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cant be for these two reasons as many people would drive rather than take the train according to some posters in this thread. Must not be too expensive or congested for them

In all fairness I know of people who live in the East Midlands who drive to Brent Cross and take the Tube from there. I'm afraid that all too often for two adults travelling together that is the cheaper option.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The more likely outcome is that the train lengths on the classic routes tend to shrink or the train frequencies reduce further.

That will only happen if the Government decides to try and force customers to use HS2 by reducing the service offered on classic lines. This is the kind of tactic that I believe South Eastern Trains tried to use. Frankly that would seem to be pretty desperate stuff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One has to remember that the railways are primarily used by people with higher than average salaries. I don't have the figures for commuter travel, but it is estimated that around 50% of all journeys on InterCity trains are undertaken by people living in the top 20% income households.

That is an excellent point, the only possible exception being those who possess of rail cards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What universe have you been living in?
Virgin is a huge subsidy HS2 will require subsidy, but per passenger mile it will be drastically lower than any upgrade programme you care to name, unless you simply yank fares up five or ten percent above inflation for a few years to drive down demand.

It's a brand new railway with brand new rolling stock, every train will be packed to the rafters (according to you) and it will still require a subsidy? For God's sake don't leak this to the media. £50 billion plus a subsidy and you are wondering why people are beginning to question it.