High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

But EMT couldn't hope to drop fares as low as the HS2 Operator.

It would lose money even on a marginal cost basis.

 

[RichmondCommu]

But EMT couldn't hope to drop fares as low as the HS2 Operator.

It would lose money even on a marginal cost basis.

But what incentive will the HS2 operator have to offer cheap as chips fares? They know they can get away with selling premium tickets in return for a quicker service. Just like every other high speed operator. And some will be prepared to pay and the rest will use the MML.

 

[HSTEd]

But what incentive will the HS2 operator have to offer cheap as chips fares?

Because the marginal costs for HS2 services are far lower than conventional ones. They will improve the yields on their franchise by grabbing as many passengers as possible to fill the line.

They know they can get away with selling premium tickets in return for a quicker service. Just like every other high speed operator. And some will be prepared to pay and the rest will use the MML.

Every other high speed operator has a higher cost base than the lower speed one on the same corridor.
The HS2 operator will have a lower cost base than the MML operator since the MML operator is going to cling to 125mph rolling stock to maintain the appearance of intercity operations, this will kill the capacity of the trains and put the operating costs through the roof.

 

[jon0844]

At the very least we'll see extremely low advance fares or other discounted offers/promotions.

With so much more capacity, nobody would want to run empty trains or even get to a point where trains might be cut back in frequency.

 

[RichmondCommu]

At the very least we'll see extremely low advance fares or other discounted offers/promotions.

With so much more capacity, nobody would want to run empty trains or even get to a point where trains might be cut back in frequency.

I don't think the operator of HS2 could care less about empty trains providing they meet their contractural obligations to the DfT and satisfy their shareholders. Oh yes, remember them? Have no doubt that the DfT will seek to extract an absolute fortune from the operator of HS2 because they'll never learn!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because the marginal costs for HS2 services are far lower than conventional ones. They will improve the yields on their franchise by grabbing as many passengers as possible to fill the line.

But where are these customers likely to come from? In Sheffield it's hardly going to be a case of last one out turn off the lights. Or Leeds, Manchester and the East Midlands for that matter. Are you suggesting that industry based in the North will head south?

Every other high speed operator has a higher cost base than the lower speed one on the same corridor.
The HS2 operator will have a lower cost base than the MML operator since the MML operator is going to cling to 125mph rolling stock to maintain the appearance of intercity operations, this will kill the capacity of the trains and put the operating costs through the roof.

Well thats certainly not the case with the SNCF and it's LGV lines. And the SNCF charge a premium for their LGV services so why shouldn't HS2? It's inevitable that they will charge as much as they can.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think the operator of HS2 could care less about empty trains providing they meet their contractural obligations to the DfT and satisfy their shareholders. Oh yes, remember them? Have no doubt that the DfT will seek to extract an absolute fortune from the operator of HS2 because they'll never learn!

But premium services almost never make money.
Piling it high and selling it cheap is how you make money.

But where are these customers likely to come from? In Sheffield it's hardly going to be a case of last one out turn off the lights. Or Leeds, Manchester and the East Midlands for that matter. Are you suggesting that industry based in the North will head south?

And yet there is sufficient flows to support regular intercity operations with drastically longer journey times?

Well thats certainly not the case with the SNCF and it's LGV lines. And the SNCF charge a premium for their LGV services so why shouldn't HS2? It's inevitable that they will charge as much as they can.

As far as I am aware the premium was only introduced relatively recently and has been balanced out by services that dump vast numbers of low cost advanced fares on major LGV corridors.
And the DfT could simply decree that there will be no premium so that it can cut back the subsidies for the paralleling intercity lines as they convert to cheaper to run outer suburban routes.

 

[RichmondCommu]

But premium services almost never make money.
Piling it high and selling it cheap is how you make money.

I can only assume that you are oblivious to the profits that the likes of BMW and Jaguar Land Rover make. And for goodness sake please don't go preaching to Tata Motors.

And yet there is sufficient flows to support regular intercity operations with drastically longer journey times?

But with nothing like the numbers you are suggesting with the proposed Duplex services.

As far as I am aware the premium was only introduced relatively recently and has been balanced out by services that dump vast numbers of low cost advanced fares on major LGV corridors.
And the DfT could simply decree that there will be no premium so that it can cut back the subsidies for the paralleling intercity lines as they convert to cheaper to run outer suburban routes.

Well I'm sorry but you need to go back and research the fares charged on LGV / TGV services a little further. SNCF have been charging premuim rates on their LGV routes since they were introduced in the early 1980's. Not only that but low cost advanced fares have only been introduced in the last year or so and only on selected routes.

As for the DfT, they couldn't care less about the ticketing policy of the HS2 operator providing they are able to pay a kings ransom. I'm afraid that's the price we have to for privatisation. Not only that but a reduced service will do very little for the likes of Leicester. But hey who cares about Leicester?

 

[HSTEd]

I can only assume that you are oblivious to the profits that the likes of BMW and Jaguar Land Rover make. And for goodness sake please don't go preaching to Tata Motors.

And what is the cash profit they make?
Now go and compare the cash profit a mass market producer makes with a siilar amount spent on fixed infrastructure.

But with nothing like the numbers you are suggesting with the proposed Duplex services.

Perhaps not, but the Nottingham train just serves nottingham and Leicester, a Duplex set could get Derby/Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds. And possibly Birmingham Airport too.

Well I'm sorry but you need to go back and research the fares charged on LGV / TGV services a little further. SNCF have been charging premuim rates on their LGV routes since they were introduced in the early 1980's.

So the Socialist Government that was in power when the LGV Sud Est was costructed lied? The political position was very clearly that no premium should be charged.

Not only that but low cost advanced fares have only been introduced in the last year or so and only on selected routes.

Selected routes which include the busiest of the LGV lines? Sud-Est.

As for the DfT, they couldn't care less about the ticketing policy of the HS2 operator providing they are able to pay a kings ransom.

And despite the lower returns per passenger, going pile it high sell it cheap will still give greater returns since remember the cost of HS2 is the same in either case.

I'm afraid that's the price we have to for privatisation. Not only that but a reduced service will do very little for the likes of Leicester. But hey who cares about Leicester?

A clockface 4 trains per hour timetable is going to be bad for Leicester?
Why?

 

[AndyLandy]

The presumption will always be made that people will pay more for a quicker service and this won't change with the introuction of HS2.

Heavens! Make sure nobody tells FlyBe that! I'd hate for them to stop selling me Southampton-Manchester flights that are cheaper than taking the train...

 

[RichmondCommu]

And what is the cash profit they make?
Now go and compare the cash profit a mass market producer makes with a siilar amount spent on fixed infrastructure.

Oh dear. Go and look at the latest results for Tata Motors (who own Jaguar Land Rover) and than get back to me. Or indeed all the mass market producers in Europe.

Perhaps not, but the Nottingham train just serves nottingham and Leicester, a Duplex set could get Derby/Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds. And possibly Birmingham Airport too.

And how big is the market for rail travel between Leeds and Birmingham? Bearing in mind that Cross Country make a loss on their services.

So the Socialist Government that was in power when the LGV Sud Est was costructed lied? The political position was very clearly that no premium should be charged.

And you believe everything that politicians tell you. Good luck.

Selected routes which include the busiest of the LGV lines? Sud-Est.

So are you suggesting that all the other routes are a waste of time and indeed they've only introduced it on one route. And ask yourself why it's taken them this long?

And despite the lower returns per passenger, going pile it high sell it cheap will still give greater returns since remember the cost of HS2 is the same in either case.

Again, pile it high but where are all these customers going to come from?

A clockface 4 trains per hour timetable is going to be bad for Leicester?
Why?

Because if you have your way they'll be running at 110 mph and stopping at every station between Leicester and London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Heavens! Make sure nobody tells FlyBe that! I'd hate for them to stop selling me Southampton-Manchester flights that are cheaper than taking the train...

Try booking your flight on the day you wish to fly. And then get back to me.

 

[Wirral]

Then add in the higher usage from intermediate stations such as Milton Keynes, Grantham, Rugby etc and the new journey opportunities to London created by Lincoln, Burton etc and it all comes back about even.

London Midland trains already run fast trains from Rugby and Milton Keynes and the fares are a fraction of Virgin trains from Rugby and the same from MK. The premium charged on Manchester Crewe Chester etc tickets will not be gained on these routes you suggest. Population Burton, population Manchester not the same league.

 

[AndyLandy]

Try booking your flight on the day you wish to fly. And then get back to me.

Ironically, this morning's 0655 was still available for £64.12, so sometimes it does work out cheaper, even on the day. Cheapest single by train is £100.40

Of course, we're comparing apples and oranges here, flight prices are pretty much entirely quota-controlled, whereas there are fixed walk-up fares on the train. Flights tend to be sold as singles, whereas a return journey is often much more economical by train.

But the summary is that on any given day, for any given journey, sometimes the faster service will be cheaper. It's the same quirks of quota control that end up with 1st class advances sometimes being cheaper than std ones (I love when that happens!)

As for fares on HS2, I assume they'll be regulated to some extent by the government. So, I suspect the London-Birmingham "Any Permitted" fare will turn into the HS2 fare, but the WCML operators might look to offer cheaper "via WCML only" fares.

 

[Metrailway]

On average, TGV services have a load factor of around 80%. This is due to the skeletal service provided on 'classic' lines and the lower frequencies provided by TGV when compared to our InterCity services. E.g IIRC Paris - Lyon, the busiest TGV route, generally has a off-peak frequency of 1tph.

According to HS2, the frequency of HS2 services would be broadly similar to the current IC service pattern. Plus, it is claimed by HS2 that the classic IC services will not become skeletal (I'm sceptical). Assuming this is all true, there is little chance that HS2 will achieve a similar load factor to TGV. I believe HS2 calculated that they will have an average load factor of 50-60% (I can't remember the exact figure).

As a business model based solely on low fares assumes a very high load factor on services, how can HS2, with a claimed load factor of 50-60%, be a solely low fare operator?

 

[HSTEd]

Quite easily.

Because they will just be slightly of a lower fare operator than they were.

And anyone who thinks that train lengths will be anything like what they are now on paralleling classic trains is kidding themselves.
2tph may continue to Leeds but they will likely be 5-car IEPs.

 

[tbtc]

I don't think the operator of HS2 could care less about empty trains providing they meet their contractural obligations to the DfT and satisfy their shareholders. Oh yes, remember them? Have no doubt that the DfT will seek to extract an absolute fortune from the operator of HS2 because they'll never learn!

The DfT can't win with some people.

When a TOC gets a subsidy then people complain about taxpayer money being used to subsidise profits.

When a TOC pays a premium then people complain about the TOC being "squeezed" (and why are the premiums going back to central Government rather than keeping fares down on that franchise - as I've seen ECML users moan about).

Would you rather that the HS2 provider pays a premium to the Government (in which case some of the infrastructure costs are being repaid etc)? Is that really a bad thing?

Because the alternative is that the HS2 provider gets a subsidy, in which case people will complain that there's clearly no business case (because it still requires subsidy).

Can't win.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh dear. Go and look at the latest results for Tata Motors (who own Jaguar Land Rover) and than get back to me. Or indeed all the mass market producers in Europe.

Land Rover is hardly a niche brand.
They sell ridiculous numbers of vehicles.

You would have to disentangle the results of Land Rover and Jaguar.

ANd what about Tata Motor's other mass market business in India and Europe (remember they own Daewoo as well now)?
How are you going to disentangle all that?

And how big is the market for rail travel between Leeds and Birmingham? Bearing in mind that Cross Country make a loss on their services.

Cross Country could fill every train to the gunnels between Leeds and Birmingham and make a loss. The franchise is a disaster.

As to the marginal cost of a train stopping at Birmingham International.... it is rather low.

Again, pile it high but where are all these customers going to come from?

Slashing travel times has produced drastic increases in custom everywhere else. The last time travel times dropped this much is probably the WCML electrification project.

Because if you have your way they'll be running at 110 mph and stopping at every station between Leicester and London.

Which means they will be ten minutes slower than the fastest train is now and the same speed as one of the current trains is?
It is hardly a disaster.

Remember the ruling line-speed on the MML is 110mph right now.
The disadvantage to the passengers on Leicester-London have to be weighed against the advantage of other passengers on the route that barely get a look in now.

I know you want to live in a world where no new railway lines are ever built and no service pattern changes which ever disadvantage anyone are introduced.
But world does not exist.
Service pattern changes are inevitable unless you want to throw away many of the advantages of the new line, and even if you did require that some mythical upgrade would still give worse value for money than it.

It is either this or we do nothing while the lines overflow and we arrest the growth of rail travel permanently.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Land Rover is hardly a niche brand.
They sell ridiculous numbers of vehicles.

You would have to disentangle the results of Land Rover and Jaguar.

And what about Tata Motor's other mass market business in India and Europe (remember they own Daewoo as well now)?
How are you going to disentangle all that?

Initially I thought you'd posted this for comedy value but oh my goodness you haven't have you! If you are trying to suggest that Land Rover can be compared to European based mass market car makers then you are very, very wrong. Yes they are performing very well but in no way can they be compared to the likes of PSA Peugeot Citroën in terms of the number of cars they produce.

As for for Tata Motors financial performance, other organisations can interpret this for me. For your own future reference the FT are very good at this. Failing that, the business section of the various broadsheets is also very helpful in this respect. In other words I don't have to disentangle anything at all!

Cross Country could fill every train to the gunnels between Leeds and Birmingham and make a loss. The franchise is a disaster.

As to the marginal cost of a train stopping at Birmingham International.... it is rather low.

I concur but in all fairness the HS2 operator will not be very well placed to take advantage of the cross country market as they don't serve anything like enough stations.

And I don't seem to remember making a reference to the marginal cost of servicing Birmingham International.

Slashing travel times has produced drastic increases in custom everywhere else. The last time travel times dropped this much is probably the WCML electrification project.

I'm not sure that the word 'drastic' is particularly appropriate here but I would agree that Virgin has recorded impressive figures since the WCML was modernised. However these are nothing compared to your grossly exaggerated and unrealistic forecasts for HS2 which simply don't stand up under examination.

Which means they will be ten minutes slower than the fastest train is now and the same speed as one of the current trains is?
It is hardly a disaster.

Remember the ruling line-speed on the MML is 110mph right now.
The disadvantage to the passengers on Leicester-London have to be weighed against the advantage of other passengers on the route that barely get a look in now.

In which case why go to all the time and expense of raising the speed limit on the MML to 125 mph? A 125 mph railway should have 125 mph trains. Would you care to mention the stations on the MML which 'barely get a look in' at the moment? Whilst I accept that it's physically impossible for Leicester to be part of HS2 there is no reason why it shouldn't retain 125 mph trains.

I know you want to live in a world where no new railway lines are ever built and no service pattern changes which ever disadvantage anyone are introduced.
But world does not exist.
Service pattern changes are inevitable unless you want to throw away many of the advantages of the new line, and even if you did require that some mythical upgrade would still give worse value for money than it.

It is either this or we do nothing while the lines overflow and we arrest the growth of rail travel permanently.

On the contrary I welcome the construction of new railway lines. Crossrail will transform public transport in London and hopefully Crossrail 2 will progress beyond the planning stage. I'm also very much in favor of HS2 although I have my concerns regarding the business plan and the need to serve more destinations in the East Midlands.

However, I do think it's a complete waste of time to reduce service levels on other routes such as the MML because we are then back at square one. I also have my suspicions that the DfT will run down the MML in order to force people on to HS2 in an effort to shore up their business plan. Given that the budget for HS2 is completely separate from the existing transport budget there is no reason to do this.

Maintaining current line speed on the WCML and MML will not cause lines to over flow in the future. However, it will perhaps affect usage levels on HS2. Perhaps this is what you are worried about?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The DfT can't win with some people.

When a TOC gets a subsidy then people complain about taxpayer money being used to subsidise profits.

When a TOC pays a premium then people complain about the TOC being "squeezed" (and why are the premiums going back to central Government rather than keeping fares down on that franchise - as I've seen ECML users moan about).

Would you rather that the HS2 provider pays a premium to the Government (in which case some of the infrastructure costs are being repaid etc)? Is that really a bad thing?

Because the alternative is that the HS2 provider gets a subsidy, in which case people will complain that there's clearly no business case (because it still requires subsidy).

Can't win.

I think its absolutely right that the company running HS2 pays a premium to the Government given that they will have a brand new railway and brand new trains. I was simply referring to the high premiums that have been paid in the past.

The point I was trying to make was that as the premium is likely to be on the large side this will surely be reflected in ticket prices. Which may well mean that travelling on the MML is cheaper. For the punters it then comes down to cost v travel time.

 

[tbtc]

I'm also very much in favor of HS2 although I have my concerns regarding the business plan and the need to serve more destinations in the East Midlands

If HS2 was to remain the same, but with the Totton stop changed to one in central Derby, would that satisfy you?

I think its absolutely right that the company running HS2 pays a premium to the Government given that they will have a brand new railway and brand new trains. I was simply referring to the high premiums that have been paid in the past.

The point I was trying to make was that as the premium is likely to be on the large side this will surely be reflected in ticket prices. Which may well mean that travelling on the MML is cheaper. For the punters it then comes down to cost v travel time

The size of the subsidy/ premium shouldn't affect ticket prices - you (as the HS2 operator) try to maximise ticket revenue based on managing peak capacity and maximising revenue from quieter off peak services.

Whether you are paying a billion pounds in premium or receiving a billion pounds in subsidy, the economics of maximising revenue from a relatively fixed number of seats doesn't change.

The important factor to ticket prices is how elastic the demand is likely to be for tickets, not the size of the premium/ subsidy.

 

[mister-sparky]

If it served more destinations then it would be SLOWER not faster. That's the point. That's why there's only one in the west midlands, one in the east midlands, and one in south yorkshire. If they started adding in stops every 10 minutes then the business plan would go out the window cuz it wouldn't make things much faster than they are now.

So so many posts on here object to HS2 because it doesn't stop right on their doorstep. Tough sh*t! Get over it.

 

[HowardGWR]

If it served more destinations then it would be SLOWER not faster. That's the point. That's why there's only one in the west midlands, one in the east midlands, and one in south yorkshire. If they started adding in stops every 10 minutes then the business plan would go out the window cuz it wouldn't make things much faster than they are now.

So so many posts on here object to HS2 because it doesn't stop right on their doorstep. Tough sh*t! Get over it.

That's a bit aggressive but essentially correct. I envisage a new service post HS2 that will take over the XC routes but use HS2 lines where possible, but only stopping at major centres using compatibles.

So Bristol - Birmingham - (Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh) or (Manchester - Glasgow). The existing XC services would interleave with these.

This is the way to put an end to short distance internal flights.

 

[HSTEd]

There will be no way onto the HS2 North legs from the Classic Lines south of Birmingham.
Unfortunately such a chord is not in the programme.

As to the MML undercutting the HS2 tickets.... wouldn't the DfT, if it was so concerned with max returns, simply write into the MML franchise specification that no TOC specific tickets from London to Nottingham-Derby-Sheffield would be permitted?

Ditto with ICEC and ICWC.

 

[Ironside]

There will be no way onto the HS2 North legs from the Classic Lines south of Birmingham.
Unfortunately such a chord is not in the programme.

As to the MML undercutting the HS2 tickets.... wouldn't the DfT, if it was so concerned with max returns, simply write into the MML franchise specification that no TOC specific tickets from London to Nottingham-Derby-Sheffield would be permitted?

Ditto with ICEC and ICWC.

Though split ticketing could get around that.

 

[joeykins82]

HS2 will almost certainly offer lots of very cheap advance fares. Their flexible tickets will likely be the same price as the current ones, or possibly with a 5% "via HS2" markup. That'll leave the classic TOCs room to offer cheaper flexible tickets via the slower routes, just like LM and Chiltern do against Virgin now.

 

[Ironside]

HS2 will almost certainly offer lots of very cheap advance fares. Their flexible tickets will likely be the same price as the current ones, or possibly with a 5% "via HS2" markup. That'll leave the classic TOCs room to offer cheaper flexible tickets via the slower routes, just like LM and Chiltern do against Virgin now.

I think for classic TOCs the core target market will be mostly be the stopping and semi fast services because these are a captive market and can be charged accordingly. Trying to compete for passengers against HS2 which will have lower running costs will not be a good business plan. Having some advance tickets at a low price just to fill trains and get some extra revenue would work but the classic TOC are not going to lease extra trains just to fill them with cheap tickets that won't provide enough revenue to make a profit.

 

[AndyLandy]

I think for classic TOCs the core target market will be mostly be the stopping and semi fast services because these are a captive market and can be charged accordingly. Trying to compete for passengers against HS2 which will have lower running costs will not be a good business plan. Having some advance tickets at a low price just to fill trains and get some extra revenue would work but the classic TOC are not going to lease extra trains just to fill them with cheap tickets that won't provide enough revenue to make a profit.

I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as that. Just look at London Midland's range of SuperOffpeak fares, designed to compete with Virgin. There are some really cheap Euston-Birmingham or Euston-Crewe walk-up fares, but try getting a cheap walk-up between Birmingham and Crewe. You'll struggle, since LM have a captive market there.

If you're running a stopping or semi-fast service between London and Birmingham, your core market will be for passengers travelling to/from the intermediate stations. However, if you have additional, unfilled capacity, you'll want to seek ways to utilise it. Offering through journeys at a reduced price is one way to get you some more bums on seats.

 

[joeykins82]

The classic TOCs will cover their operating costs from season ticket revenue and business travellers on anytime tickets, and make their profit from attracting leisure travellers on to off-peak services. The LM equivalent franchise for instance won't need to lease extra trains for those off-peak services because they'll still need a lot of stock to cope with the number of commuters and peak-time travellers.

Any off-peak ticket sold by a south-east commuter TOC is essentially profitable because the rolling stock and staffing levels required to support the commuter flows are so high.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as that. Just look at London Midland's range of SuperOffpeak fares, designed to compete with Virgin. There are some really cheap Euston-Birmingham or Euston-Crewe walk-up fares, but try getting a cheap walk-up between Birmingham and Crewe. You'll struggle, since LM have a captive market there.

However, LM are progressively introducing restrictions on EUS-Crewe/Brimingham Super Offpeak tickets as the trains are too busy

 

[AndyLandy]

However, LM are progressively introducing restrictions on EUS-Crewe/Brimingham Super Offpeak tickets as the trains are too busy

The restrictions exist to protect their more expensive flows. I was recently trying to see if I could get from Crewe to Birmingham cheaply. There are SuperOffpeak tickets from Crewe to stations beyond Coventry that are valid through Birmingham and are cheaper than a Crewe-Birmingham regular Offpeak ticket. So it's unsurprising that they're restricted to prevent BoJ at Birmingham.

 

[HowardGWR]

There will be no way onto the HS2 North legs from the Classic Lines south of Birmingham.
Unfortunately such a chord is not in the programme.

More wonderful DfT future proofing planning then! My last eyeball of the proposed lines into Curzon St seemed to allow a connection with no trouble AFAICS.

Strange, as the two lines north of Brum are planned to link in to the present lines at the northern ends. In fact this feature is used to shew how all the Regions will benefit from HS2.

Not the SW though apparently.

 

[RichmondCommu]

If HS2 was to remain the same, but with the Totton stop changed to one in central Derby, would that satisfy you?

With all due respect I don't that's a particularly sensible idea. It wouldn't be practical for everything running north of the East Midlands to call at either Nottingham or Derby. However the DfT should consider running three or four services to Derby and Nottingham every day, splitting them at Toton. Don't forget people in this country don't tend to like changing trains and I think this will put people off using HS2.

The size of the subsidy/ premium shouldn't affect ticket prices - you (as the HS2 operator) try to maximise ticket revenue based on managing peak capacity and maximising revenue from quieter off peak services.

Whether you are paying a billion pounds in premium or receiving a billion pounds in subsidy, the economics of maximising revenue from a relatively fixed number of seats doesn't change.

The important factor to ticket prices is how elastic the demand is likely to be for tickets, not the size of the premium/ subsidy.

Well I think we can all agree that the DfT is not going to subsidise HS2 as it will want to get as much of its money back as it can. And assuming that the operator will have to pay a pretty hefty premium to run the services this will be treated as a cost to the business. Now considering that the operator will want to make a profit and pay dividend to its shareholders, this will all have to be considered when setting prices. It’s the same as any other business.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If it served more destinations then it would be SLOWER not faster. That's the point. That's why there's only one in the west midlands, one in the east midlands, and one in south yorkshire. If they started adding in stops every 10 minutes then the business plan would go out the window cuz it wouldn't make things much faster than they are now.

So so many posts on here object to HS2 because it doesn't stop right on their doorstep. Tough sh*t! Get over it.

One can only assume that you don't work in PR Given that I live in Richmond the rather limited destinations on HS2 isn't a major issue but it might be more advantageous to continue to use the MML rather than have to change at Toton.