High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[YorkshireBear]

Why not? Forums are designed for discussions, and HS2 is dependent on very intense usage to justify the exorbitant costs. Even if these projections are correct in terms of numbers, the yield is very much open to debate, and that is what is most important for the business case.

I accept the WCML is rammed in terms of track capacity, but I don't accept that these trains are full - in fact, to quote another thread just started, some of the Virgin services branded "peak" are so empty, they are practically ghost trains.

On the ECML, the opposite seems to be the case - headways are much longer (station capacity KX etc?), but I understand the Leeds <> KX services are rammed full throughout the peak and beyond.

Which begs the question - if this is where the relief is needed most, why is HS2 being built the other way round?

That is today, what about 2026? what about 2033? what about 2050?

You telling me it will be the same then?

 

[JohnB57]

That is today, what about 2026? what about 2033? what about 2050?

You telling me it will be the same then?

If growth continues at the same approximate 5% annual average since 2004, based on 2011 statistics, the approximate figures for passenger journeys per year will be: -

2011 - 1.44bn
2026 - 2.99bn
2033 - 4.20bn
2050 - 9.63bn

I ignored the anomalous 06/07 growth percentage of almost 20% as this seemed like a blip that was unlikely to repeat. However, if you factor this back in, the figures seem even more outlandish.

What this means though, is that, if population also continues to grow at its ten year average of 0.7%, annual rail journeys per head of population will rise from 24 in 2011 to 122 in 2050. Equivalent to every single man, woman and child in mainland GB making 61 return end to end journeys per year, versus only 12 in 2011. Five times the rail journeys. For what purpose?

Clearly a fantasy (or nightmare) world, but food for thought.

 

[hs2critic]

That might partly be due to the price differential between peak and off-peak fares.

It is EVERYTHING to do with the price differential, there's no partly about it. Some countries charge the same price, regardless of time of day, and that would result in complete carnage during peak times, so I take no issue with having a difference, but not one where you pay 3x as much.

In fact, I'd even accept this price differential, if it was only applied to walk up fares, and you get get a "reasonably" priced ticket - say £40 one way on all but the very busiest services (of which there are perhaps 2-3 on the morning W Mids peak), by booking online a little ahead of departure.

No-one has ever explained to me why Virgin have this policy, but I can only assume it is a relic of the franchise process, whereby other operators charge a similar amount per mile (eg First to Bristol TM are even more), but that there is huge peak overcapacity because of this tiny (for an intercity service) headway, and there is only a finite number of people who will pay the very top whack.

Pricing people off the trains evidently works, but it shifts the burden of carrying all those passengers onto the roads. Sooner or later the route needs to be expanded in order to cope with the demand.

Except that the demand clearly isn't there when it counts. If the DfT had teeth, instead of going on their "ABB" vendetta, they should have required more flexibility in pricing as part of the franchise deal - First were going to partially address this by reducing peak fares by ~15% and using more yield management.

The real irony for me is that YM is a concept which evolved in the low cost airlines, of which Branson runs a couple, but they don't apply the same concept to their trains.

Let's see a true picture of how much demand there really is on this line, and then come back and start talking about adding capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, if this did go ahead, why build a tunnel under East Midlands Airport?!

I'm with Edwin M on this. It is easy to point to the proposed route map, look at a tunnel and say "how completely daft", but his logic is right - although you should be able to re-position a bus station fairly easily.

EMA handles around 4m pax pa, compared to 9 at BHX, but the numbers alone only tell part of the picture. Most people using EMA are leisure passengers, more likely to travel in a family car, and even if they did want to take a train to the airport, they'd be less willing to pay any premium fares to get there.

Also, the M42 site is adjacent to the NEC complex, so a station there makes sense.

If growth continues at the same approximate 5% annual average since 2004, based on 2011 statistics, the approximate figures for passenger journeys per year will be: -

2050 - 9.63bn

I would caution against using exponential growth figures ad infinitum - you get the exact opposite of the "5 computers" myth discussed earlier.

You have to ask where this growth is coming from, and for how long it can continue. It looks like we've reached "peak car" a couple of years back, and this is unlikely to reverse even in a growing economy. The argument is that rail has continued to grow, even in the current climate - so essentially, the growth is coming from modal share take, something which, by definition cannot be infinite.

Even with a rising population and an economy returning to growth, it is unlikely that the overall transport pie will grow at anything like the same rate it has historically. If the pie stays the same, your projections take rail to 40% modal share, and if it grows 1% pa, your share is still as large as 27%, on a par with Japan now.

 

[NSEFAN]

It is EVERYTHING to do with the price differential, there's no partly about it. Some countries charge the same price, regardless of time of day, and that would result in complete carnage during peak times, so I take no issue with having a difference, but not one where you pay 3x as much.

In fact, I'd even accept this price differential, if it was only applied to walk up fares, and you get get a "reasonably" priced ticket - say £40 one way on all but the very busiest services (of which there are perhaps 2-3 on the morning W Mids peak), by booking online a little ahead of departure.

No-one has ever explained to me why Virgin have this policy, but I can only assume it is a relic of the franchise process, whereby other operators charge a similar amount per mile (eg First to Bristol TM are even more), but that there is huge peak overcapacity because of this tiny (for an intercity service) headway, and there is only a finite number of people who will pay the very top whack.

The reason for the big difference in peak and off-peak prices must be economic. Neither the TOCs nor the DfT would be allowing it to happen if there wasn't a good business case for it. Afterall, the TOCs have big premiums to pay and need to extract as much revenue as they can.

Except that the demand clearly isn't there when it counts. If the DfT had teeth, instead of going on their "ABB" vendetta, they should have required more flexibility in pricing as part of the franchise deal - First were going to partially address this by reducing peak fares by ~15% and using more yield management.

The real irony for me is that YM is a concept which evolved in the low cost airlines, of which Branson runs a couple, but they don't apply the same concept to their trains.

Let's see a true picture of how much demand there really is on this line, and then come back and start talking about adding capacity.

Again, pricing schemes only work up to a point. Railways are a much more closed market system compared to the airlines (at least for commutes and short distance leisure travel). If people can't take the train then they'll drive. We as a country need to make sure that doesn't happen, because persistent transport congestion is bad for both the environment and the economy.

As others have said, the demand may not be there now but it will be if the current growth continues. Given HS2 won't actually be operating for a couple of decades, in my eyes it is a smart move to future proof a core mainline like the WCML. Even if we starting building a high speed line for the ECML tomorrow it wouldn't help the immediate over crowding problems there today.

 

[HSTEd]

I think 1% p.a in transport demand growth is rather constrictive.
2% would be a healthier rate.

Hyper-mobility is the future of the economy and I think enabling it for all is an important social objective.

 

[The Ham]

I think 1% p.a in transport demand growth is rather constrictive.
2% would be a healthier rate.

Hyper-mobility is the future of the economy and I think enabling it for all is an important social objective.

I agree, given population growth of 0.7% a transport growth of only 1% seams too low. Also there is much rail growth which can be released by providing extra capacity.

It is well known that we can not build enough roads, as fast as they are build they fill up, as it is easier to travel. In the same way rail projects have done the same (London Overground is a good example)

 

[JohnB57]

I would caution against using exponential growth figures ad infinitum - you get the exact opposite of the "5 computers" myth discussed earlier.

You have to ask where this growth is coming from, and for how long it can continue.

It can't continue - that was the point I was making.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hyper-mobility is the future of the economy and I think enabling it for all is an important social objective.

You think that the provision of subsidies to provide "hyper-mobility" is good for the economy? How so, if the recipient of the subsidy does not go on to contribute more in taxation than the subsidy on his journey?

 

[HSTEd]

You think that the provision of subsidies to provide "hyper-mobility" is good for the economy? How so, if the recipient of the subsidy does not go on to contribute more in taxation than the subsidy on his journey?

There will be no significant subsidy on any single journey.
And frankly HS2 will still pay for itself even if all passenger growth stops tommorow since it will permit a massive de-speccing of existing services, slashing operating costs.

Remember that the payback period is effectively a century or more, reducing the only capital costs to those of interest payments.
Even if the most pessimistic figure of £50bn capital cost is used, that produces interest payments to almost nothing as the interest rate on index linked gilts of 20-30 year duration is still negative. (Which means the debt will shrink in real terms by itself)
A few hundred million a year could be paid off out of the operational savings from the WCML without even considering a couple of pounds on each ticket sold as a result of the line opening.

The Government can borrow money for infrastructure absurdly cheaply.

Then we have to consider the social costs of drastically increasing the mobility of the lower echelons of society, the ability of very low cost tickets to take a giant chunk out of the coach market and numerous other factors.
These are not traditionally included in the normal BCR calculations.

 

[Bonemaster]

There will be no significant subsidy on any single journey.
And frankly HS2 will still pay for itself even if all passenger growth stops tommorow since it will permit a massive de-speccing of existing services, slashing operating costs.

Remember that the payback period is effectively a century or more, reducing the only capital costs to those of interest payments.
Even if the most pessimistic figure of £50bn capital cost is used, that produces interest payments to almost nothing as the interest rate on index linked gilts of 20-30 year duration is still negative. (Which means the debt will shrink in real terms by itself)
A few hundred million a year could be paid off out of the operational savings from the WCML without even considering a couple of pounds on each ticket sold as a result of the line opening.

The Government can borrow money for infrastructure absurdly cheaply.

Then we have to consider the social costs of drastically increasing the mobility of the lower echelons of society, the ability of very low cost tickets to take a giant chunk out of the coach market and numerous other factors.
These are not traditionally included in the normal BCR calculations.

The payback period is not a century or more it is much much less, possibly as much as 50% less, different assets have different lifespans, even if a station has a lifespan of that length is open to debate.

Whilst the government maybe able to borrow money very cheaply today, we have sky high borrowing as it is, and the effects of the austerity to reduce this are being felt by everybody.

We are living in a world where investments that make long term steady returns are highly desirable for both investment and pension funds, if HS2 was a sound long term investment, with stable steady returns, these would be chomping at the bit to invest mine and your long term savings and pensions, but they are not. This means the risk is transferred to the tax payer, no high speed line world wide operates profitably without outright or hidden subsidies. Put simply if HS2 had a sound credible business case, the state would not be paying the bill.

Whether passenger growth is sustainable is highly open to question, we are in a period of the economic cycle where rail usage has traditionally dropped and I have seen no analysis anywhere to question why this time the adverse is occurring, whether it be that the depressed state of the housing market, large number of people with low equity in housing, an unwillingness of banks to offer mortgages, along with the current state of the jobs market, is in the medium term making people willing to travel without relocating, and when the banks start lending again, and people are able to relocate, will rail travel return to a much lower growth trend?

I highly question if much of the future demand even exists given there will come a point where those who are willing to commute distance that make rail attractive already do. I also have serious doubts around the willingness of people to change from high speed to classic trains, where there are slower classical alternatives, just look at the completely farcical nature of the Eurostar projections that made similar assumptions, where we see current usage at less than a third of its projected usage, with highly successful market share.

 

[HSTEd]

The payback period is not a century or more it is much much less, possibly as much as 50% less, different assets have different lifespans, even if a station has a lifespan of that length is open to debate.

All the expensive parts of the line will last a very long time. Tunnels don't fill themselves and with modern concrete sealed technologies they will be lower maintenance than equivalent lengths of open line.
Stations last for decades without major maintenance if designed properly and even track slab can last 20 years without having to be relaid.

The very lightweight nature of the infrastructure (only twin tracks) will enable drastically reduced operating costs compared to today's networks.

Whilst the government maybe able to borrow money very cheaply today, we have sky high borrowing as it is, and the effects of the austerity to reduce this are being felt by everybody.

Austerity is not to reduce the budget deficit, Austerity is part of the ideological crusade to smash what remains of the pre-1979 consensus. Hence pointless and expensive privatisations of everything in sight that remains in public ownership.
The deficit would probably have been largely gone by now had the government not cut anything at all and played up the sense of doom that they did. Especially had it then pumped additional stimulus into infrastructure to get cost of living rises under control.

Borrowing 40 or even 50 billion pounds for the capital costs of this project would be a very small blip compared to total government spending.

We are living in a world where investments that make long term steady returns are highly desirable for both investment and pension funds, if HS2 was a sound long term investment, with stable steady returns, these would be chomping at the bit to invest mine and your long term savings and pensions, but they are not.

They can make far higher returns in commercial blue chips that can provide six or seven percent yields reliably.
Infrastructure is not attractive to institutional investors under normal circumstances precisely because to operate properly it cannot make large returns.
Observe the disaster that is the electricity industry, water industry and numerous other projects.
When was the last time any of those industries built anything large without rather significant state support?

This means the risk is transferred to the tax payer, no high speed line world wide operates profitably without outright or hidden subsidies.

The risk will always be with the tax-payer, especially if British pension funds are the things investing.
Do you seriously think that the government would dare allow another Equitable Life fiasco? It would almost certainly destroy its chances of winning the next election, the pension funds have the state over a barrel.

Put simply if HS2 had a sound credible business case, the state would not be paying the bill.

Nothing infrastructural in nature does, which is why no major infrastructure is ever built without state support.
There is more money to be made elsewhere.

and when the banks start lending again, and people are able to relocate, will rail travel return to a much lower growth trend?

Banks lending more would just start the house price escalator all over again, driving housing costs through the roof and increasing commuting rather than decreasing it, as people are forced to move to places that are more affordable due to enormous increases in rent.

I highly question if much of the future demand even exists given there will come a point where those who are willing to commute distance that make rail attractive already do. I also have serious doubts around the willingness of people to change from high speed to classic trains, where there are slower classical alternatives, just look at the completely farcical nature of the Eurostar projections that made similar assumptions, where we see current usage at less than a third of its projected usage, with highly successful market share.

The conventional trains will not just be slower, they will probably be more expensive.
Eurostars projections were based on a model that predated the explosive rise of low cost airlines, there does not appear that there could be a similar effect that would suddenly render HS2 moot.

There are no slower "classical alternatives" to Eurostar... the budget airlines are comparable in terms of speed, and with the aforementioned cost savings the conventional trains will have no real advantage over the high speed ones, even after the de-speccing.

 

[Ironside]

We are living in a world where investments that make long term steady returns are highly desirable for both investment and pension funds, if HS2 was a sound long term investment, with stable steady returns, these would be chomping at the bit to invest mine and your long term savings and pensions, but they are not. This means the risk is transferred to the tax payer, no high speed line world wide operates profitably without outright or hidden subsidies. Put simply if HS2 had a sound credible business case, the state would not be paying.

A Canadian insurance firm has invested in HS1 but only after it was built and was up and running, I imagine the same thing will happen for HS2. It would be far too risky to invest in before opening because of the risks of construction budget over runs and the challenges of getting the legislation through parliament.

 

[pablo]

"Observe the disaster that is the electricity industry, water industry and numerous other projects.
When was the last time any of those industries built anything large without rather significant state support?"

Funny that, since I'm sitting on one. £1,000 million invested over the last eight years, no subsidy, and earning a tidy profit. But if I were to tell you where or what, then I'd have to ......!

 

[tbtc]

We are living in a world where investments that make long term steady returns are highly desirable for both investment and pension funds, if HS2 was a sound long term investment, with stable steady returns, these would be chomping at the bit to invest mine and your long term savings and pensions, but they are not. This means the risk is transferred to the tax payer, no high speed line world wide operates profitably without outright or hidden subsidies. Put simply if HS2 had a sound credible business case, the state would not be paying the bill

The same could be said of any railway investment. Or any road investment. Why aren't private firms all building new toll bridges over rivers like the Forth and the Thames?

The fact that the private sector needs the state to get the ball rolling in any infrastructure (even in broadband) is just the way things are - I don't think you can use it as a point to score against HS2.

 

[Metrailway]

Peter Mandelson wrote recently that Labour intended HS2 to be partly funded by private capital. They did not want taxpayers to meet all of the costs. Presumably when the Coalition came in, it was found that this was not possible.

 

[Bonemaster]

All the expensive parts of the line will last a very long time. Tunnels don't fill themselves and with modern concrete sealed technologies they will be lower maintenance than equivalent lengths of open line.
Stations last for decades without major maintenance if designed properly and even track slab can last 20 years without having to be relaid.

The very lightweight nature of the infrastructure (only twin tracks) will enable drastically reduced operating costs compared to today's networks.

You said 100 years now its down to 20. Maintaining an asset, is not the same as its life span

Austerity is not to reduce the budget deficit, Austerity is part of the ideological crusade to smash what remains of the pre-1979 consensus. Hence pointless and expensive privatisations of everything in sight that remains in public ownership.

This government has privatised less than any government since 1979, even less so if you exclude Northern Rock, and Lloyds in the pipeline which it was never the intention to keep banks in the state sector.

The deficit would probably have been largely gone by now had the government not cut anything at all and played up the sense of doom that they did. Especially had it then pumped additional stimulus into infrastructure to get cost of living rises under control.

Many of planned capital improvements will raise the cost of living. You may have seen this mornings news from Npower as evidence of this, or planned toll roads.

Borrowing 40 or even 50 billion pounds for the capital costs of this project would be a very small blip compared to total government spending.

Maybe but the same as our national defence budget.

They can make far higher returns in commercial blue chips that can provide six or seven percent yields reliably.
Infrastructure is not attractive to institutional investors under normal circumstances precisely because to operate properly it cannot make large returns.
Observe the disaster that is the electricity industry, water industry and numerous other projects.
When was the last time any of those industries built anything large without rather significant state support?

Now you really do not have a clue what you are talking about. You certainly have no idea how the water industry works or is funded, and little grasp of the facts of the facts of the electricity industry, where the market is imperfect because of government policy and the desire to lower CO2 emissions, which in turn leads to a requirement for assets that the market would not build. Until the big drive on CO2 emissions power generation was getting on very well building gas power stations off its own back.

We see almost our entire water industry in the hands of venture capitalists, pension funds, and the kind of institutional investors who you claim won't touch them for the simple reason they are a safe investment because of stable returns

The risk will always be with the tax-payer, especially if British pension funds are the things investing.
Do you seriously think that the government would dare allow another Equitable Life fiasco? It would almost certainly destroy its chances of winning the next election, the pension funds have the state over a barrel.

What do you think pension funds do with your money, they don't put it under a mattress, it is invested. Much of it will be in safe infrastructure companies, so as to get the guaranteed returns, no queue for HS2

Nothing infrastructural in nature does, which is why no major infrastructure is ever built without state support.
There is more money to be made elsewhere.

Sorry but you talk rubbish, Railways were built by private enterprise, the dash for gas in the 90's wasn't funded by government, the upgrades to our ageing power distribution network will not be funded with state support but by me and you through our power bills

The conventional trains will not just be slower, they will probably be more expensive.
Eurostars projections were based on a model that predated the explosive rise of low cost airlines, there does not appear that there could be a similar effect that would suddenly render HS2 moot.

There are no slower "classical alternatives" to Eurostar... the budget airlines are comparable in terms of speed, and with the aforementioned cost savings the conventional trains will have no real advantage over the high speed ones, even after the de-speccing.

Here a picture of a classical alternative to Eurostar Here. There are plenty of things that could have an effect, drop in fuel prices, innovations in Electric cars, and increased road building to name three very quick and easy ones.The demand for Eurostar never existed in the first place, it was based on spurious growth forecasts, it wasn't just out by a little bit, it was out by a factor of 3.

I find your comments on more expensive quiet funny, HS2 will go for huge yields the speed means it would not have a need to compete on price, whilst franchised operators will compete for slower journeys on price, much as happens today too and from Birmingham, having (questionably) lower costs, does in no way equate the price you charge someone for a good or service

The same could be said of any railway investment. Or any road investment. Why aren't private firms all building new toll bridges over rivers like the Forth and the Thames?

The fact that the private sector needs the state to get the ball rolling in any infrastructure (even in broadband) is just the way things are - I don't think you can use it as a point to score against HS2.

The problem with broadband wasn't those city areas with a good return, it was the rural ones, where it was unaffordable for the market to provide, drawing such similarities highlights why HS2 is simply uneconomic. The market will simply do whatever makes an attractive return.

The M6 toll was built using not state money but private money, and there are so many PFI schemes paid for by the private sector where the private sector has been lured by the steady returns these offer, that it would take an eternity to list them.

 

[Deerfold]

The M6 toll was built using not state money but private money, and there are so many PFI schemes paid for by the private sector where the private sector has been lured by the steady returns these offer, that it would take an eternity to list them.

The M6Toll that was so successful we've been inundated with similar proposals?

The PFI schemes were only snapped up as the government signed up to ludicrously high annual payments for the use of the assets in many schemes.

 

[hs2critic]

Hyper-mobility is the future of the economy and I think enabling it for all is an important social objective.

Says who? We've been here before with predict and provide on the roads, now you are arguing for the same mistakes to be made on the railways.

I'm all for connectivity, but not for fabricating a whole load of journeys fed by artificially stimulated demand.

You suggested before that areas around the parkway stations in Manchester, Brum etc would become huge development opportunities, but given the lack of connectivity here and the vast car parks, this would largely be car dependent sprawl.

I'd rather see London's housing needs catered for in the London area, and ditto for its airports. You don't end the "north-south" (really a misnomer, it is more like the London / ex-London divide) by having people commute in to London from further and further away.

Even if the most pessimistic figure of £50bn capital cost is used

Most pessimistic? So would you have said that using up all of the original budget was "most pessimistic"? How many more rises will there be before this gets underway? You cannot deduct the contingency from the budget, OB is there for a reason.

Then we have to consider the social costs of drastically increasing the mobility of the lower echelons of society

I hope you meant social benefits, ie access to work. Again, HS2 really isn't the priority here. How many people are going to commute by high speed train to relatively low paying jobs? In this context, it is FAR more important to improve local transport first. Look at industrial estates / business parks like Middlemarch in Coventry - there are only 5 buses each day going there, all useless for shift work. You cannot safely cycle there as the approach road has a 70 mph limit.

So sure - if you can come up with a genuinely sound case for HS2, let's build it, but I'm yet to be convinced by the maths.

In the meantime, you could build a Dutch standard cycling network for an entire city like Coventry for the cost of just 1 mile of HS2 ph1 (approx £120-150m). This will provide genuine social mobility and health returns, and it will do so within a few years (a BCR of 7 is typical here, and this is based on 3-5 years lifespan, against 60 for a road or 30 for HS2).

Of course, nobody commutes by bike from Coventry to London, but then again, HS2 isn't much use to us either.

 

[Bonemaster]

The M6Toll that was so successful we've been inundated with similar proposals?

The PFI schemes were only snapped up as the government signed up to ludicrously high annual payments for the use of the assets in many schemes.

I personally despise PFI schemes, none the less they prove successive governments have been able to make almost anything make enough of a return that other people are willing to pay to build infrastructure. Then comes HS2, that has to be done differently

 

[Deerfold]

Of course, nobody commutes by bike from Coventry to London, but then again, HS2 isn't much use to us either.

Is it possible you could include details of who you're quoting in your posts? In such a popular thread it makes it a lot easier to follow debates.

 

[tbtc]

The M6 toll was built using not state money but private money, and there are so many PFI schemes paid for by the private sector where the private sector has been lured by the steady returns these offer, that it would take an eternity to list them.

The M6 toll and the various PFI Hospitals/ Schools (etc) were only built because the state guaranteed the PFI company a good enough rate of return on its money.

It's nothing to do with the business case of any infrastructure, all to do with whether the Government will throw enough money at it. You don't see companies speculatively building hospitals for the same reason that companies aren't "chomping at the bit" to build HS2 privately.

The fact that nobody is going to take on a project costing tens of billions of pounds without state guarantee shouldn't really surprise you or be used as a stick to beat HS2 with. Fact is, nobody in the private sector can take on that level of risk unsupported.

 

[hs2critic]

Deerfold -
Is it possible you could include details of who you're quoting in your posts? In such a popular thread it makes it a lot easier to follow debates.

Point taken - although that particular comment was the end of my own post.

NSEFAN - The reason for the big difference in peak and off-peak prices must be economic. Neither the TOCs nor the DfT would be allowing it to happen if there wasn't a good business case for it.

Well that's what you'd expect, but I seriously cannot find a rational explanation. It is as if VT see themselves as an exclusive club where "if you have to ask how much mate, you shouldn't be coming in"

I take no issue with either the existence of premium pricing, or with first class, but both should be priced at a point where they are reasonably well used.

Perhaps there are explanations on the F&P forum, but in the meantime, the best I am aware of (or have heard from other rail commentators outside this forum), is that it is simply a legacy from times when there were less seats, and the fares have risen alongside other price rises, as that is what they HAVE been allowed to do.

It really is quite bizarre - I'm not aware of any peak time travel service anywhere in the world that has so many empty seats - and just for clarity, I'm talking about with the flow.

Obviously, I wouldn't expect trains leaving Euston in the morning to be so busy, yet EVEN those are also at the same peak rate.

 

[Ironside]

HS2 preparation bill got through it's first of two days at the Committee stage. The Public Bill Committee have not amended the bill in any way!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

massive use of slab track in all the tunnels which is a near zero maintenance solution.

I'd like to believe you, but NR has just closed the Merseyrail Loop for 6 weeks to replace, according to the ME web-site, just 200 metres of "worn-out" slab track between Liverpool Central and James Street.
Many similar summer closures beckon in the future.

 

[Trog]

I'd like to believe you, but NR has just closed the Merseyrail Loop for 6 weeks to replace, according to the ME web-site, just 200 metres of "worn-out" slab track between Liverpool Central and James Street.
Many similar summer closures beckon in the future.

Thats the trouble with slab when it fails and it will, it is an absolute offspring of unmarried parents to replace.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Well lets make a couple of simplifying assumptions: if you live in the South Manchester area you will likely have a similar travel time to the station as you would living in Surrey.

Canary Wharf to Old Oak Common will be something on order of 20 minutes.
Meanwhile Canary Wharf to London Waterloo takes something on order of 10-15 minutes.
With Manchester Airport something like 59 minutes out of Old Oak Common, that takes us to roughly an hour of Waterloo. (note that I am ignoring connection times in both cases, so that should remove that as an important effect)

That takes us to somewhere similar to Haslemere which is still within the extended halo that I would regard as the "commuter belt".

There is then the draw of the ludicrously cheap housing compared to Surrey.
In fact Birmingham international will be somewhere closer than that, tending towards the area of Guildford.

Ok the first problem we have here is that there won't be a Crossrail station at Old Oak Common which means you have the added journey time of Euston to Tottenham Court Road. Here we are relying on the Tube and all the problems of getting on it during the rush.

Now if we're considering the "commuter belt", when I worked for Barclays my boss commuted from Winchester which is an hour from Waterloo. Now if you live in Winchester (which is a beautiful city) you are highly unlikely to want to move north to South Manchester.

In terms of house prices, the areas of South Manchester that you have quoted are unlikely to be much cheaper than the nicer areas of Surrey in which case there is no incentive to move. However of course the likes of Wythenshawe would be a completely matter.

 

[transmanche]

Ok the first problem we have here is that there won't be a Crossrail station at Old Oak Common

There won't be one when Crossrail opens, but (AFAIAA) an interchange station is planned to open when HS2 opens.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Oldham is too far from the Manchester HSR station, we are more likely to see any migration to points in the south of Manchester, presumably concentrating in areas that are not directly under the airport approach/takeoff paths.
Ditto Birmingham (except to the east rather than south).

To be honest you've hit the nail on the head with this post. Northern towns like Oldham which are in desperate need of economic help will not see any benefit from HS2. Where as the likes of Alderley Edge and Prestbury are already thriving.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There won't be one when Crossrail opens, but (AFAIAA) an interchange station is planned to open when HS2 opens.

Always learning on this form
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because the North west is miles from anywhere, and certainly too far from London, which is the only city that really matters in the UK (it has 15% of the population by itself remember).
HS2 corrects this.

I work for a company who's UK HQ is in London but also has offices in Manchester. Now when staff in London are asked to spend two days in Manchester they are dragged up kicking and screaming. Their opinion of Manchester is that it's cold (although not at the moment!), grim and there's nothing to do. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with this if we were to re-locate to Manchester I would lose a lot of talented staff to rivals based in London. And staff that currently have a 30 minute commute to Bankside are not going to travel to Manchester everyday.

 

[JamesRowden]

There is the data on this servey http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/jun/16/commuting that shows that if a person has a job in London but wants to save money by commuting in, and also wants a fast and frequent service to London, they can live Reading or Letchworth which are shown to also be about the cheapest places to commute to London from. Hastings is the cheapest but I think that the 90-100 minute journey time to London is a greater loss than the slightly lower overall cost.

By the time that HS2 phase 2 is completed, the London and South East RUS indicates that there should be 16 fast trains per hour between Reading and Paddington during the peak and maybe 20 fast trains per hour if they take over the Heathrow Express paths during the peak.

 

[Martin222002]

I work for a company who's UK HQ is in London but also has offices in Manchester. Now when staff in London are asked to spend two days in Manchester they are dragged up kicking and screaming. Their opinion of Manchester is that it's cold (although not at the moment!), grim and there's nothing to do. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with this if we were to re-locate to Manchester I would lose a lot of talented staff to rivals based in London. And staff that currently have a 30 minute commute to Bankside are not going to travel to Manchester everyday.

I think this is being viewed from the wrong angle. Of cause people who work in central London and live in or close to London are going to make a bit of a fuss it they have to go and work in a regional office for a period of time, as it means having to live somewhere different for that time.

How it should be viewed is that HS2 will allow people living in and around Birmingham, Nottingham/Derby, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds to be able to work in central London without having to move to London or somewhere close to London. This is where the positive economic effects for these areas come from, as you would have people earning more in London but being able to spend their earning where they locally live, rather than in or around London if they lived in the south east.

 

[Bonemaster]

The M6 toll and the various PFI Hospitals/ Schools (etc) were only built because the state guaranteed the PFI company a good enough rate of return on its money.

It's nothing to do with the business case of any infrastructure, all to do with whether the Government will throw enough money at it. You don't see companies speculatively building hospitals for the same reason that companies aren't "chomping at the bit" to build HS2 privately.

The fact that nobody is going to take on a project costing tens of billions of pounds without state guarantee shouldn't really surprise you or be used as a stick to beat HS2 with. Fact is, nobody in the private sector can take on that level of risk unsupported.

No you dont see companies building infrastructure being built speculatively because the consumer is the UK government. This really is no different to other government schemes over the last 10-15 years. In the simplest possible terms customer specifies a product, and says they dont want to pay up front, and organisations bid for the work, no different to me or you buying large ticket items, except when we do it we dont notice the guarantees the supplier puts in either through contractual terms or through existing legislation.

The fact that the governments preferred method of infrastructure procurement has been shown to be unviable for this project speaks volumes

I partly take your point on size, although in perfectly timed new releases, what I am saying was Labours plan for the scheme, but I'm not sure you appreciate the size of some institutional investors