Was the explaination not already given: stupidly high walk up fares? From the TOC's point of view, it matters not that the trains are full, only that they are making money.
I suspect that the business case is always going to be a subject of debate because of the nature of the project. If we ran our railways purely on their financial cases, we'd close almost all of them and tarmac them over.
I personally am convinced about the need for HS2 from a long-term operational perspective. I'm more sceptical about the "lowering the north-south divide" aspect, as to me it sounds like political mumbo jumbo.
Yes, the walk-up fares is the best explanation given for the ghost trains, but Virgin do not operate any of their airlines on that principle. I know they usually operate against other competitors, and I know Virgin is just the brand, but the principles of yield management are the same.
In fact, Virgin Trains are worse than this - they have TWO opportunities to offer better fares, firstly through the open tickets (not likely, but first offered a 15% reduction) and secondly through the advance tickets.
I totally agree with your point about the externalities, but these can be factored in to a BCR equation, and there is already some allowance for these, as rail tickets are not subject to VAT, and the power is not subject to fuel duty at the same rate as auto diesel.
In the meantime, the environmental argument goes out of the window when you are moving so much air around at a time when you should be full.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is the problem I have with people who say that they are against HS2 which we know you are because of your highly original username. In a sense there is almost no point in conversing with you.
The username should speak for itself. I am critical of HS2. I think the scheme is deeply flawed. I have argued for high speed rail before. This is a very poor version of what I had hoped for, and frankly, in its current form, I will not lament if it fails.
As for the conversation, when was the last time you heard a film critic walk out the cinema going "god that film was rubbish, I hate film, I wish film had never been invented?"
The purpose of any critique for an infrastructure proposal is to look at ways it can be improved. So the Whitacre proposal would make a big difference to Coventry. Renaming it Coventry West Ryanair Parkway would not, as Birmingham Airport + NEC would veto that.
I have already asked for, and been given, reassurances that the section of greenway around Burton Green will be rehoused.
I have asked, and will continue to ask, Centro to keep a focus on local details as they rev up their support for HS2.
If you don't like what I say, that's your perogative, but please don't pretend I shouldn't come here and say it.
I understand that you dont want HS2 built near you and have genuine concerns re the post HS2 service that Coventry will be offered. I therefore find it incredible that you not only profess to love high speed trains but ADMIT that you have used EUROPEAN high speed services apparently on numerous occasions !
You are falling into the trap of calling someone a nimby, but trying to skirt round the edges of saying it.
If I was against this for nimby reasons, what would be the point in debating it in a rail forum? On the latter point, yes you are indeed correct, I do have concerns about post-HS2 Coventry.
However, that is only one of my concerns. My starting point if we wind back to 2003 when we were talking about new airports was that we should promote rail over domestic air. The sad reality is that HS2 can't and won't do that, because rail has already won the battle around the Manchester axis, but HS2 alone does not offer enough savings (-C/c deficits) to make a huge difference on Scotland's Central belt.
One wonders if you had any thoughts at all about those displaced or affected by those high speed lines you have used, or that these lines were white elephants or that their various business cases did not add up !
Not my problem. Go back through my posts. Have I EVER said on this thread "we must save our countryside" - other than in the context of recreational routes that are already there?
Equally not my business looking at the business case for a project in another country.
The cynic in me has the sneaking suspicion that the main reason you are opposed to HS2 is because it will (a) run near you and (b) not offer Coventry a station other then at NEC / International / Interchange !
I think I've already made it perfectly clear that (a) is not so and (b) is very true. Coventry is just getting going as a cycling city, and has already made a lot of improvements to become more walkable in the city centre, not to mention the massive Friargate proposal. It isn't just about the potential need for changes to get to/from London, but also the fact that relying on a parkway station creates more of the very car dependence advocates of HS2 are claiming it will mitigate. If that is so, we need to be building genuinely integrated transport, and not parkway interchanges dressed up as such.
