AndyLandy
Established Member
Or that. I guess there's no reason why the two alignments necessarily have to run parallel.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
High Speed Two (HS2) discussion
- Thread starter deltic
- Start date
- Status
Or that. I guess there's no reason why the two alignments necessarily have to run parallel.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Interesting article on the bbc website attempting to list the various arguements for and against HS2 and the counter arguements. Not a bad summary of the main issues, IMHO .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24159571
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls still supports the government's scheme but warned there should be no blank cheque.
So what are the main arguments?
For: It will help bridge the north-south divide
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says the government is "healing the north-south divide" by investing in High Speed 2. Chancellor George Osborne predicts the Y-shaped line will be "the engine for growth in the north and the Midlands".
The first phase between London and Birmingham will open in 2026. A V-shaped second section will be added in 2033, going to Manchester and Leeds. The government says it expects 70% of jobs created to be outside London. A government-commissioned report by accountants KPMG suggests that the Midlands and north will benefit more than the capital.
The West Midlands will gain most in absolute terms with a rise of £1.5bn-£3.1bn in output in 2037. The East Midlands will gain most in percentage terms - between 2.2% and 4.3% increase in output in 2037. The real regeneration benefit comes from shrinking journey times between cities in the Midlands and north of England, supporters argue.
Leeds to Birmingham is slashed from 1 hour 58 minutes to just 57 minutes. The East Midlands hub at Toton is 19 minutes from Birmingham. Manchester to Birmingham more than halves from 88 to 41 minutes.
French city Lille has seen economic benefits from the TGV
London gains from the line (by 0.5% a year) but less than the cities on HS2 to the north, says KPMG report author Lewis Atter. "The reality is that cities compete with each other. And while London is more productive it is also more expensive." Other parts of the UK not on the line but close enough to benefit from freed up rail capacity also gain by 0.5% a year, he says. But places far away from the line - Wales for example - will probably lose out economically, he says.
Counter-argument: Academics disagree over whether high-speed rail helps or hinders deprived regions. Prof John Tomaney at University College London's Bartlett School of Planning says in France, Spain and South Korea the evidence suggests it is capitals that benefit by sucking more wealth to the centre. He believes that the main effect of HS2 is that Birmingham will become part of the South East labour market.
Two of Tomaney's colleagues at UCL disagree over the research. Prof Peter Hall and Chia-Lin Chen say the Inter-City 125 network boosted cities within two hours of London. And when the TGV brought Lille within one hour of Paris, it morphed into a knowledge-economy city.
But it's a mixed picture. "High-speed rail does not always help old one-industry cities like Doncaster and Newport. And it can boost major cities - Manchester, Leeds, Lille - at the expense of their surrounding old-industrialised regions," wrote Hall.
Tim Harford, author of the Undercover Economist Strikes Back, says history does not support HS2's regeneration claims. From the horse and cart onwards, transport improvements tend to lead to urbanisation and a greater concentration of wealth. So will HS2 have this effect? "Pure theory makes it hard to know. But experience suggests we'll see more agglomeration," says Harford. He believes it would make more sense to improve transport between northern cities rather than include London.
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.
Against: There's no idea what the final bill will be
Until this summer, HS2 was priced at £32.7bn. But in June the government revised its estimate up by a further £10bn to a maximum of £42.6bn. Rolling stock is expected to cost another £7.5bn.
The Department for Transport says it will not necessarily use the entire £42.6bn, which includes a large contingency fund. It has set HS2 Ltd, the company it owns, a target price of £17.1bn for phase 1 (London to Birmingham). That contains a small contingency fund. But in case of unforeseen problems, the upper limit for phase 1 is £21.4bn, with £21.2bn for phase two. £14.4bn of the £42.6bn budget is contingency money.
The London Olympics, which organisers claim came in under budget, might make people wary. When London's bid was chosen in 2005 it was supposed to cost £2.4bn. In 2007 it was revised up to £9.35bn.
It ended up costing £8.77bn, less than its final budget but more than three-and-a-half times the original budget.
The Public Accounts select committee is alarmed by spiralling costs - from more than £16bn to £21bn plus for phase one - and the fact that contingency spending accounts for a third of the total budget.
Free market think tank the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) has suggested the cost could rise to £80bn. But that figure was reached by adding in lobbying from local councils for extra infrastructure and design changes.
Some Treasury officials are using the figure of £73bn - by adding VAT and inflation over the 20 year project. But this has been interpreted as being an artificial accounting method.
Counter-argument: Government investment in capital projects is £50bn a year, says Atter. This project is spread over 20 years so equates to just 10 months of that budget, he argues.
That's still too much for Alistair Darling, who as chancellor in the last government supported the scheme. The cost has risen too high, he wrote recently. "There are better ways to spend £50bn than on one line."
A Department for Transport spokeswoman dismisses "scare stories" of the project costing £70bn plus. "We need to build HS2 within or under budget. We will."
For: It will boost the UK economy
Chancellor George Osborne visits a train wheel factory in Manchester
There are no shortage of optimistic forecasts from the line's backers. It will generate 22,000 construction jobs in the next five years and once the entire line is running create 100,000 jobs.
The KPMG report estimates that within five years of the line opening, UK productivity will rise by £15bn a year (using 2013 money) - an increase of 0.8% in GDP. Better transport connections mean reduced production and transport costs, higher productivity and greater competition between UK regions, it says.
Times columnist Daniel Finkelstein cites Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann's Atlas of Economic Complexity as evidence the line will boost growth. The theory states that the ease with which talented people can link up is a determinant of economic growth.
But both the National Audit Office and Public Accounts select committee have questioned the business case. In 2012, the government said that the benefit cost ratio (BCR) for phase 1 was estimated at 1.4. Once it becomes the full Y-shaped network it rises to 1.9. This means for every pound spent £1.90 is generated.
An alternative scheme of patching up the line would offer a better return on investment, according to a report that engineering firm Atkins produced for the government last year. It offered the taxpayer a return of £6.06 for every pound invested.
Lord Adonis, transport secretary in the last Labour government, says HS2's benefits are not captured by the methodology. "For transport infrastructure such as HS2, connecting densely networked population and economic centres, BCRs tend to be too pessimistic because they have difficulty in capturing wider economic benefits." The Jubilee line extension to Stratford had a BCR of 0.95, he notes.
Counter-argument: The DfT's modelling was criticised for using old data, which assumed business people did little or no work on long train journeys.
But mobile phones and laptops have changed that. By not taking this into account the economic boost from shorter journeys appeared to be stronger than it was, critics say. In its report KPMG sought to address this oversight by cutting the time value gain by 50%. If you factor this in, the economic boost to UK plc decreases from £15bn to £12bn it says.
The KPMG figures are controversial. The HS2 Action Alliance, which campaigns against the project, says there is no independent, peer-reviewed research backing up KPMG's £15bn figure. BBC business editor Robert Peston has called them "spuriously precise". KPMG's forecasts assume that the biggest impediment to narrowing the economic divide between north and south is poor transport. It ignores the impact of other hard-to-calculate factors like skill shortages and lack of developable land, Peston argued.
Against: The demolition of homes and damage to rural England is too costly and disruptive
The most disrupted area in the country will be to the north of London's Euston station. More than half of the properties affected by the scheme between London and Birmingham are in and around Camden.
Across the entire line more than 600 homes will be bulldozed and another 340 homes will be cut off from their wider neighbourhood. Infrastructure supporting the line will be built on 250 acres of green belt land. Sites of special scientific interest will be sliced through by the line.
Historic houses in Buckinghamshire and Warwickshire will be demolished or blighted by the new line, campaigners say.
Homeowners will get the "unblighted" market value of their property, plus 10% (up to £47,000) and moving costs. But campaigners said the money will help only a "tiny fraction" of people.
Counter-argument: HS2 Ltd says it has already tweaked the line to reduce the number of people affected. More tunnels have been added. Around 22.5 miles (36km) of the phase 1 route will now be completely enclosed in tunnel. That is 18% of the 140 miles of rail from London to Birmingham.
HS2 Ltd says that about 60 properties on the proposed phase 1 route are likely to experience levels of noise which will qualify for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations. The number of properties that may experience a noticeable increase in noise on the phase 1 route has been reduced since consultation by a third from 4,700 to around 3,100.
For: It will be good for the environment
The government claims that HS2 will move millions of air and road trips on to rail. It will open up space on the existing rail network for freight, taking hundreds of HGVs per hour off the roads. "High speed rail is the most efficient way of transporting people between cities," a DfT spokeswoman says. "It requires fewer stops, meaning less energy is expended on repeatedly braking and accelerating."
Counter-argument: Rail expert Christian Wolmar says the climate change case for HS2 has virtually disappeared. Few high-speed train passengers will transfer from air, he argues. Research shows that most users would otherwise have taken conventional train services or simply not have made the trip.
HS2 may also encourage Birmingham to London commuting. And HS2's 250mph trains will use 50% more energy than the Eurostar trains, the HS2 Action Alliance says. The 2006 Eddington transport report predicted that the value of carbon saved over a 60-year period would be £3.2bn. The carbon saving of the line (at the time priced at £33bn) was a poor return on investment, according to Eddington.
Against: There are better value projects the UK could spend the money on
One of the strongest arguments against HS2 is the opportunity cost. Spend £50bn on HS2 and that's £50bn gone from other projects. The UK is heavily in debt, public finances are stretched so spending must be carefully prioritised. But the government has failed to compare the impact of HS2 against spending the money on other projects, sustainability think tank the New Economics Foundation says.
It suggests a £10bn upgrade of the East and West Coast main lines, £6bn on a bus and tram network in four core cities in the Midlands and the North, and £2bn on walking and cycling schemes.
Matt Ridley in the Times noted that for the cost of HS2 you could fix the nation's potholes, upgrade the existing West Coast Main Line, fix other rail bottlenecks, turn busy A-roads into dual carriageways, build a third runway at Heathrow, invest £2bn in cycle networks and provide superfast broadband across the country.
The Magazine looked at 10 other projects including the Sky Cycle scheme in London, a rail tunnel at Welwyn North and a barrage over the Severn estuary.
Counter-argument: Supporters say it's not an either or situation. Some other big schemes like the Northern Hub, which will speed up journeys between Manchester and Leeds, are due to go ahead anyway.
And if HS2 is not given the green light, it's highly unlikely all the £42.6bn would be invested on innovative transport projects. This is a one-off opportunity to do something big and bold to the rail network, they argue.
For: The West Coast Main Line will be full by 2024
Network Rail says that by the mid 2020s the West Coast Main Line will be full. Most of the crowding will be at the southern end of the line. In 2011, during the morning peak there were on average 4,000 people standing on trains into Euston and 5,000 going into Birmingham, according to the DfT.
Last year, four of the 10 most overcrowded services across the country were London Midland services using the line. Occupancy on the line's commuter trains will grow by 26% between 2011 and 2023, Network Rail says. Demand is also projected to grow on long-distance routes, with an expected rise of 46% between London and Manchester, and 39% between London and Leeds by 2023.
Counter-argument: Question marks hang over passenger demand. The National Audit Office report of May 2013 said the DfT had not provided detailed passenger projections in its business case. And if premium prices are charged for the high-speed service will that reduce demand? HS2 Limited, the DfT owned company preparing the line, had not looked into this crucial question, the NAO said.
The HS2 Action Alliance points out that numbers on the WCML grew dramatically after it was upgraded in 2008. Manchester to London was cut from 2 hours 40 minutes to 2 hours eight minutes. As a result, "there has been a massive switch from air to rail with almost everyone travelling to central London now going by train", the group's briefing document says. It is a one-off change that will not be repeated, the alliance claims.
Most Virgin West Coast trains are half empty during the daytime, it says. Even in the morning peak they are only 60% full, the group says. It is the second emptiest of the main line services. The emptiest is High Speed 1, the £6.1bn line from London to Folkestone that was completed in 2007. The campaigners point to HS1 as evidence that the DfT has form in overestimating passenger numbers. Passenger numbers on HS1 from 2007 to 2011 were two-thirds of the level forecast by the DfT in 1988, according to the National Audit Office.
No campaigners argue that rail passenger growth is stalling. However, figures this month from the Office for Rail Regulation show that passenger numbers grew by 7.3% year-on-year in the period of April to June 2013. Network Rail says that it is misleading to focus on Virgin, which accounts for about 6% of services on the West Coast Main Line. The Economist's Dan Knowles say it is not just the West Coast Mainline but the whole network that needs the new line.
Since 1995 the number of passengers on Britain's railways has almost doubled. The amount of freight has increased by 65%. The rise in numbers defied the recession, he notes.
Against: Euston is not where the logjam is
The busiest line in the UK is not the West Coast. The busiest station is not Euston. So HS2 will not tackle the real problem, opponents say.
Waterloo, Paddington, London Bridge and Liverpool Street are all far busier London stations than Euston, according to Network Rail figures.
The government says that HS2 will free up capacity by taking the long distance trains off existing lines and on to the new high speed line. But this will not help Waterloo, which is in south London. And there is a debate over whether the increased capacity adds up. Most of the trains packed on to commuter lines are stopping services that cannot move on to HS2. A minority are long-distance services - only about a quarter on the West Coast Main Line, according to Network Rail. Therefore its impact will only be "marginal" in relieving the existing lines, according to the HS2 Action Alliance. And marginal gains are not why you spend £50bn.
Counter-argument: Network Rail says this reading is wrong. It agrees that most trains during peak time are commuter services, and that only a few services can be moved from each existing line on to HS2. But this has a disproportionately large effect, it argues. This is because fast long-distance services and slow stopping services currently get in the way of each other.
"If everyone is travelling at the same speed you can get a lot more traffic on to the line," a spokesman for Network Rail says. "It allows us to completely recast the rail timetable." It is a technical argument that few laymen will be able to weigh in on. Network Rail says it could lead to a doubling of the number of trains at peak times on the West Coast Mainline. Milton Keynes and Watford Junction to London could go from six to 12 trains an hour. The East Coast Main Line might be freed up for services between Newcastle to Liverpool and Cambridge to Leeds, for example. On the Midland Main Line there might be new additional stops on the line between Bedford and St Albans, and more stops at Kettering and Wellingborough.
How much extra capacity HS2 will be able to free up on existing lines is a crucial question. But until a draft timetable is released, no-one knows quite what the impact of HS2 will be on capacity.
For: You can't boost capacity on WCML with clever tweaks and upgrades to existing lines
Lord Adonis says another upgrade of the West Coast Main Line is unrealistic and would soon be obsolete. "Patching and mending a 200-year-old railway, working at capacity, is hugely expensive and disruptive."
The last upgrade of the line, completed five years ago, cost £10bn, he says. "It entailed a decade of constant disruption to passengers and freight, and it delivered only a fraction of the capacity and connectivity of HS2."
HS2 will increase capacity from London to Birmingham by 143%, while enhancements to the existing railway would increase capacity by just 53%, a DfT spokeswoman says.
Counter-argument: A report by engineering firm Atkins suggested that an alternative proposal to HS2 - known as "51m" - would be a cheaper way of increasing long-distance capacity on the West Coast Main line.
It recommended longer trains, turning one first-class carriage into standard class, and specific local upgrades, such as a Stafford by-pass. It would allow more trains to leave Euston and marginally cut journey times between Birmingham and Manchester.
The HS2 Action Alliance says these improvements could be made within five years, rather than the 13 years it will take for phase 1 of HS2 to open. Network Rail says the alternative schemes do not provide sufficient capacity to meet forecast demand on the suburban commuter services at the south end of the WCML.
Against: High-speed is not necessary on a new line
HS2 will come in at £121m per mile, double that of Germany's Frankfurt to Cologne line, Ross Clark wrote in the Spectator.
"The extra cost is partly down to the higher population density of the English countryside, which requires more expense in compulsory purchase orders, but partly because it has been over-engineered." At 225mph, curves must be gentler adding to the cost of land and construction.
Counter-argument: The DfT says it might save £1.4bn by building the first phase of HS2 for conventional speed trains. "But the slower journey times - an extra 15 minutes between London and Birmingham - would reduce the benefits by £6.2 billion," a DfT spokeswoman says. "The benefit-cost ratio of building a high-speed railway rather than a conventional speed railway is therefore around 4 to 1."
For: Like the Olympics it will boost national pride and give the country a long-term national asset
The Olympics boosted national pride and gave the country a sense it could achieve something big. The government says HS2 will do the same.
Counter-argument: Others point out the Olympics legacy is not proven. And HS2 is four times the cost and could easily become an expensive white elephant. It was first proposed when the economy was booming. But the country is heavily indebted now. And many are suspicious of political grand projets.
"Politicians are always excited by 'visionary' schemes," says Alistair Darling. "One thing I have learnt is that transport, rather like banking, is at its best when it is boring. That is when it tends to work."
Against: The UK is embracing 20th Century technology just as the rest of the world turns its back on high-speed rail
Has a taxi app made the train outdated?
Spain has the most miles of high-speed line in Europe. Its network is praised for its speed and comfort. But most experts believe that even the busiest line - from Barcelona to Madrid - loses money. Passenger numbers on its high speed network are rising again after a fall last year but only after aggressive price cutting.
France's busiest TGV lines might just break even. But even there high speed is now seen as too expensive. The French government recently cancelled new TGV projects in favour of overhauling its non-high speed Intercites services.
California's plan for a high-speed line is still on track - just.
But commentators argue that high speed rail is 20th Century technology. Video conferencing, apps like Hailo, and Google's driverless cars are a cheaper and more up-to-date model for doing business and getting around.
Continue reading the main story
More from the Magazine
The HS rail link won't be finished until 2033 so why does it take two decades to finish a project like this?
20 reasons why it can take 20 years to build a railway
Then there's the Hyperloop scheme suggested by PayPal founder Elon Musk. He claims it could propel pressurised capsules between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 35 minutes.
Counter-argument: In Asia high-speed rail is still in vogue. China last year opened the longest high-speed line in the world and plans to double the size of its network by 2015.
"High speed rail is not some untested fantasy but a reality in many of the world's leading and fastest growing economies," says a DfT spokeswoman. "High speed rail is the right answer for Britain."
Have we missed any of the reasons for or against HS2? Tell us below or on Facebook or Twitter using the hashtag #HS2.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24159571
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls still supports the government's scheme but warned there should be no blank cheque.
So what are the main arguments?
For: It will help bridge the north-south divide
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says the government is "healing the north-south divide" by investing in High Speed 2. Chancellor George Osborne predicts the Y-shaped line will be "the engine for growth in the north and the Midlands".
The first phase between London and Birmingham will open in 2026. A V-shaped second section will be added in 2033, going to Manchester and Leeds. The government says it expects 70% of jobs created to be outside London. A government-commissioned report by accountants KPMG suggests that the Midlands and north will benefit more than the capital.
The West Midlands will gain most in absolute terms with a rise of £1.5bn-£3.1bn in output in 2037. The East Midlands will gain most in percentage terms - between 2.2% and 4.3% increase in output in 2037. The real regeneration benefit comes from shrinking journey times between cities in the Midlands and north of England, supporters argue.
Leeds to Birmingham is slashed from 1 hour 58 minutes to just 57 minutes. The East Midlands hub at Toton is 19 minutes from Birmingham. Manchester to Birmingham more than halves from 88 to 41 minutes.
French city Lille has seen economic benefits from the TGV
London gains from the line (by 0.5% a year) but less than the cities on HS2 to the north, says KPMG report author Lewis Atter. "The reality is that cities compete with each other. And while London is more productive it is also more expensive." Other parts of the UK not on the line but close enough to benefit from freed up rail capacity also gain by 0.5% a year, he says. But places far away from the line - Wales for example - will probably lose out economically, he says.
Counter-argument: Academics disagree over whether high-speed rail helps or hinders deprived regions. Prof John Tomaney at University College London's Bartlett School of Planning says in France, Spain and South Korea the evidence suggests it is capitals that benefit by sucking more wealth to the centre. He believes that the main effect of HS2 is that Birmingham will become part of the South East labour market.
Two of Tomaney's colleagues at UCL disagree over the research. Prof Peter Hall and Chia-Lin Chen say the Inter-City 125 network boosted cities within two hours of London. And when the TGV brought Lille within one hour of Paris, it morphed into a knowledge-economy city.
But it's a mixed picture. "High-speed rail does not always help old one-industry cities like Doncaster and Newport. And it can boost major cities - Manchester, Leeds, Lille - at the expense of their surrounding old-industrialised regions," wrote Hall.
Tim Harford, author of the Undercover Economist Strikes Back, says history does not support HS2's regeneration claims. From the horse and cart onwards, transport improvements tend to lead to urbanisation and a greater concentration of wealth. So will HS2 have this effect? "Pure theory makes it hard to know. But experience suggests we'll see more agglomeration," says Harford. He believes it would make more sense to improve transport between northern cities rather than include London.
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.
Against: There's no idea what the final bill will be
Until this summer, HS2 was priced at £32.7bn. But in June the government revised its estimate up by a further £10bn to a maximum of £42.6bn. Rolling stock is expected to cost another £7.5bn.
The Department for Transport says it will not necessarily use the entire £42.6bn, which includes a large contingency fund. It has set HS2 Ltd, the company it owns, a target price of £17.1bn for phase 1 (London to Birmingham). That contains a small contingency fund. But in case of unforeseen problems, the upper limit for phase 1 is £21.4bn, with £21.2bn for phase two. £14.4bn of the £42.6bn budget is contingency money.
The London Olympics, which organisers claim came in under budget, might make people wary. When London's bid was chosen in 2005 it was supposed to cost £2.4bn. In 2007 it was revised up to £9.35bn.
It ended up costing £8.77bn, less than its final budget but more than three-and-a-half times the original budget.
The Public Accounts select committee is alarmed by spiralling costs - from more than £16bn to £21bn plus for phase one - and the fact that contingency spending accounts for a third of the total budget.
Free market think tank the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) has suggested the cost could rise to £80bn. But that figure was reached by adding in lobbying from local councils for extra infrastructure and design changes.
Some Treasury officials are using the figure of £73bn - by adding VAT and inflation over the 20 year project. But this has been interpreted as being an artificial accounting method.
Counter-argument: Government investment in capital projects is £50bn a year, says Atter. This project is spread over 20 years so equates to just 10 months of that budget, he argues.
That's still too much for Alistair Darling, who as chancellor in the last government supported the scheme. The cost has risen too high, he wrote recently. "There are better ways to spend £50bn than on one line."
A Department for Transport spokeswoman dismisses "scare stories" of the project costing £70bn plus. "We need to build HS2 within or under budget. We will."
For: It will boost the UK economy
Chancellor George Osborne visits a train wheel factory in Manchester
There are no shortage of optimistic forecasts from the line's backers. It will generate 22,000 construction jobs in the next five years and once the entire line is running create 100,000 jobs.
The KPMG report estimates that within five years of the line opening, UK productivity will rise by £15bn a year (using 2013 money) - an increase of 0.8% in GDP. Better transport connections mean reduced production and transport costs, higher productivity and greater competition between UK regions, it says.
Times columnist Daniel Finkelstein cites Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann's Atlas of Economic Complexity as evidence the line will boost growth. The theory states that the ease with which talented people can link up is a determinant of economic growth.
But both the National Audit Office and Public Accounts select committee have questioned the business case. In 2012, the government said that the benefit cost ratio (BCR) for phase 1 was estimated at 1.4. Once it becomes the full Y-shaped network it rises to 1.9. This means for every pound spent £1.90 is generated.
An alternative scheme of patching up the line would offer a better return on investment, according to a report that engineering firm Atkins produced for the government last year. It offered the taxpayer a return of £6.06 for every pound invested.
Lord Adonis, transport secretary in the last Labour government, says HS2's benefits are not captured by the methodology. "For transport infrastructure such as HS2, connecting densely networked population and economic centres, BCRs tend to be too pessimistic because they have difficulty in capturing wider economic benefits." The Jubilee line extension to Stratford had a BCR of 0.95, he notes.
Counter-argument: The DfT's modelling was criticised for using old data, which assumed business people did little or no work on long train journeys.
But mobile phones and laptops have changed that. By not taking this into account the economic boost from shorter journeys appeared to be stronger than it was, critics say. In its report KPMG sought to address this oversight by cutting the time value gain by 50%. If you factor this in, the economic boost to UK plc decreases from £15bn to £12bn it says.
The KPMG figures are controversial. The HS2 Action Alliance, which campaigns against the project, says there is no independent, peer-reviewed research backing up KPMG's £15bn figure. BBC business editor Robert Peston has called them "spuriously precise". KPMG's forecasts assume that the biggest impediment to narrowing the economic divide between north and south is poor transport. It ignores the impact of other hard-to-calculate factors like skill shortages and lack of developable land, Peston argued.
Against: The demolition of homes and damage to rural England is too costly and disruptive
The most disrupted area in the country will be to the north of London's Euston station. More than half of the properties affected by the scheme between London and Birmingham are in and around Camden.
Across the entire line more than 600 homes will be bulldozed and another 340 homes will be cut off from their wider neighbourhood. Infrastructure supporting the line will be built on 250 acres of green belt land. Sites of special scientific interest will be sliced through by the line.
Historic houses in Buckinghamshire and Warwickshire will be demolished or blighted by the new line, campaigners say.
Homeowners will get the "unblighted" market value of their property, plus 10% (up to £47,000) and moving costs. But campaigners said the money will help only a "tiny fraction" of people.
Counter-argument: HS2 Ltd says it has already tweaked the line to reduce the number of people affected. More tunnels have been added. Around 22.5 miles (36km) of the phase 1 route will now be completely enclosed in tunnel. That is 18% of the 140 miles of rail from London to Birmingham.
HS2 Ltd says that about 60 properties on the proposed phase 1 route are likely to experience levels of noise which will qualify for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations. The number of properties that may experience a noticeable increase in noise on the phase 1 route has been reduced since consultation by a third from 4,700 to around 3,100.
For: It will be good for the environment
The government claims that HS2 will move millions of air and road trips on to rail. It will open up space on the existing rail network for freight, taking hundreds of HGVs per hour off the roads. "High speed rail is the most efficient way of transporting people between cities," a DfT spokeswoman says. "It requires fewer stops, meaning less energy is expended on repeatedly braking and accelerating."
Counter-argument: Rail expert Christian Wolmar says the climate change case for HS2 has virtually disappeared. Few high-speed train passengers will transfer from air, he argues. Research shows that most users would otherwise have taken conventional train services or simply not have made the trip.
HS2 may also encourage Birmingham to London commuting. And HS2's 250mph trains will use 50% more energy than the Eurostar trains, the HS2 Action Alliance says. The 2006 Eddington transport report predicted that the value of carbon saved over a 60-year period would be £3.2bn. The carbon saving of the line (at the time priced at £33bn) was a poor return on investment, according to Eddington.
Against: There are better value projects the UK could spend the money on
One of the strongest arguments against HS2 is the opportunity cost. Spend £50bn on HS2 and that's £50bn gone from other projects. The UK is heavily in debt, public finances are stretched so spending must be carefully prioritised. But the government has failed to compare the impact of HS2 against spending the money on other projects, sustainability think tank the New Economics Foundation says.
It suggests a £10bn upgrade of the East and West Coast main lines, £6bn on a bus and tram network in four core cities in the Midlands and the North, and £2bn on walking and cycling schemes.
Matt Ridley in the Times noted that for the cost of HS2 you could fix the nation's potholes, upgrade the existing West Coast Main Line, fix other rail bottlenecks, turn busy A-roads into dual carriageways, build a third runway at Heathrow, invest £2bn in cycle networks and provide superfast broadband across the country.
The Magazine looked at 10 other projects including the Sky Cycle scheme in London, a rail tunnel at Welwyn North and a barrage over the Severn estuary.
Counter-argument: Supporters say it's not an either or situation. Some other big schemes like the Northern Hub, which will speed up journeys between Manchester and Leeds, are due to go ahead anyway.
And if HS2 is not given the green light, it's highly unlikely all the £42.6bn would be invested on innovative transport projects. This is a one-off opportunity to do something big and bold to the rail network, they argue.
For: The West Coast Main Line will be full by 2024
Network Rail says that by the mid 2020s the West Coast Main Line will be full. Most of the crowding will be at the southern end of the line. In 2011, during the morning peak there were on average 4,000 people standing on trains into Euston and 5,000 going into Birmingham, according to the DfT.
Last year, four of the 10 most overcrowded services across the country were London Midland services using the line. Occupancy on the line's commuter trains will grow by 26% between 2011 and 2023, Network Rail says. Demand is also projected to grow on long-distance routes, with an expected rise of 46% between London and Manchester, and 39% between London and Leeds by 2023.
Counter-argument: Question marks hang over passenger demand. The National Audit Office report of May 2013 said the DfT had not provided detailed passenger projections in its business case. And if premium prices are charged for the high-speed service will that reduce demand? HS2 Limited, the DfT owned company preparing the line, had not looked into this crucial question, the NAO said.
The HS2 Action Alliance points out that numbers on the WCML grew dramatically after it was upgraded in 2008. Manchester to London was cut from 2 hours 40 minutes to 2 hours eight minutes. As a result, "there has been a massive switch from air to rail with almost everyone travelling to central London now going by train", the group's briefing document says. It is a one-off change that will not be repeated, the alliance claims.
Most Virgin West Coast trains are half empty during the daytime, it says. Even in the morning peak they are only 60% full, the group says. It is the second emptiest of the main line services. The emptiest is High Speed 1, the £6.1bn line from London to Folkestone that was completed in 2007. The campaigners point to HS1 as evidence that the DfT has form in overestimating passenger numbers. Passenger numbers on HS1 from 2007 to 2011 were two-thirds of the level forecast by the DfT in 1988, according to the National Audit Office.
No campaigners argue that rail passenger growth is stalling. However, figures this month from the Office for Rail Regulation show that passenger numbers grew by 7.3% year-on-year in the period of April to June 2013. Network Rail says that it is misleading to focus on Virgin, which accounts for about 6% of services on the West Coast Main Line. The Economist's Dan Knowles say it is not just the West Coast Mainline but the whole network that needs the new line.
Since 1995 the number of passengers on Britain's railways has almost doubled. The amount of freight has increased by 65%. The rise in numbers defied the recession, he notes.
Against: Euston is not where the logjam is
The busiest line in the UK is not the West Coast. The busiest station is not Euston. So HS2 will not tackle the real problem, opponents say.
Waterloo, Paddington, London Bridge and Liverpool Street are all far busier London stations than Euston, according to Network Rail figures.
The government says that HS2 will free up capacity by taking the long distance trains off existing lines and on to the new high speed line. But this will not help Waterloo, which is in south London. And there is a debate over whether the increased capacity adds up. Most of the trains packed on to commuter lines are stopping services that cannot move on to HS2. A minority are long-distance services - only about a quarter on the West Coast Main Line, according to Network Rail. Therefore its impact will only be "marginal" in relieving the existing lines, according to the HS2 Action Alliance. And marginal gains are not why you spend £50bn.
Counter-argument: Network Rail says this reading is wrong. It agrees that most trains during peak time are commuter services, and that only a few services can be moved from each existing line on to HS2. But this has a disproportionately large effect, it argues. This is because fast long-distance services and slow stopping services currently get in the way of each other.
"If everyone is travelling at the same speed you can get a lot more traffic on to the line," a spokesman for Network Rail says. "It allows us to completely recast the rail timetable." It is a technical argument that few laymen will be able to weigh in on. Network Rail says it could lead to a doubling of the number of trains at peak times on the West Coast Mainline. Milton Keynes and Watford Junction to London could go from six to 12 trains an hour. The East Coast Main Line might be freed up for services between Newcastle to Liverpool and Cambridge to Leeds, for example. On the Midland Main Line there might be new additional stops on the line between Bedford and St Albans, and more stops at Kettering and Wellingborough.
How much extra capacity HS2 will be able to free up on existing lines is a crucial question. But until a draft timetable is released, no-one knows quite what the impact of HS2 will be on capacity.
For: You can't boost capacity on WCML with clever tweaks and upgrades to existing lines
Lord Adonis says another upgrade of the West Coast Main Line is unrealistic and would soon be obsolete. "Patching and mending a 200-year-old railway, working at capacity, is hugely expensive and disruptive."
The last upgrade of the line, completed five years ago, cost £10bn, he says. "It entailed a decade of constant disruption to passengers and freight, and it delivered only a fraction of the capacity and connectivity of HS2."
HS2 will increase capacity from London to Birmingham by 143%, while enhancements to the existing railway would increase capacity by just 53%, a DfT spokeswoman says.
Counter-argument: A report by engineering firm Atkins suggested that an alternative proposal to HS2 - known as "51m" - would be a cheaper way of increasing long-distance capacity on the West Coast Main line.
It recommended longer trains, turning one first-class carriage into standard class, and specific local upgrades, such as a Stafford by-pass. It would allow more trains to leave Euston and marginally cut journey times between Birmingham and Manchester.
The HS2 Action Alliance says these improvements could be made within five years, rather than the 13 years it will take for phase 1 of HS2 to open. Network Rail says the alternative schemes do not provide sufficient capacity to meet forecast demand on the suburban commuter services at the south end of the WCML.
Against: High-speed is not necessary on a new line
HS2 will come in at £121m per mile, double that of Germany's Frankfurt to Cologne line, Ross Clark wrote in the Spectator.
"The extra cost is partly down to the higher population density of the English countryside, which requires more expense in compulsory purchase orders, but partly because it has been over-engineered." At 225mph, curves must be gentler adding to the cost of land and construction.
Counter-argument: The DfT says it might save £1.4bn by building the first phase of HS2 for conventional speed trains. "But the slower journey times - an extra 15 minutes between London and Birmingham - would reduce the benefits by £6.2 billion," a DfT spokeswoman says. "The benefit-cost ratio of building a high-speed railway rather than a conventional speed railway is therefore around 4 to 1."
For: Like the Olympics it will boost national pride and give the country a long-term national asset
The Olympics boosted national pride and gave the country a sense it could achieve something big. The government says HS2 will do the same.
Counter-argument: Others point out the Olympics legacy is not proven. And HS2 is four times the cost and could easily become an expensive white elephant. It was first proposed when the economy was booming. But the country is heavily indebted now. And many are suspicious of political grand projets.
"Politicians are always excited by 'visionary' schemes," says Alistair Darling. "One thing I have learnt is that transport, rather like banking, is at its best when it is boring. That is when it tends to work."
Against: The UK is embracing 20th Century technology just as the rest of the world turns its back on high-speed rail
Has a taxi app made the train outdated?
Spain has the most miles of high-speed line in Europe. Its network is praised for its speed and comfort. But most experts believe that even the busiest line - from Barcelona to Madrid - loses money. Passenger numbers on its high speed network are rising again after a fall last year but only after aggressive price cutting.
France's busiest TGV lines might just break even. But even there high speed is now seen as too expensive. The French government recently cancelled new TGV projects in favour of overhauling its non-high speed Intercites services.
California's plan for a high-speed line is still on track - just.
But commentators argue that high speed rail is 20th Century technology. Video conferencing, apps like Hailo, and Google's driverless cars are a cheaper and more up-to-date model for doing business and getting around.
Continue reading the main story
More from the Magazine
The HS rail link won't be finished until 2033 so why does it take two decades to finish a project like this?
20 reasons why it can take 20 years to build a railway
Then there's the Hyperloop scheme suggested by PayPal founder Elon Musk. He claims it could propel pressurised capsules between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 35 minutes.
Counter-argument: In Asia high-speed rail is still in vogue. China last year opened the longest high-speed line in the world and plans to double the size of its network by 2015.
"High speed rail is not some untested fantasy but a reality in many of the world's leading and fastest growing economies," says a DfT spokeswoman. "High speed rail is the right answer for Britain."
Have we missed any of the reasons for or against HS2? Tell us below or on Facebook or Twitter using the hashtag #HS2.
Last edited:
Forgive me but could you outline exactly where that thread proves that the average man on the street cannot afford (at all, which is the implication) to travel by train? Again if you can travel distances like Darlington to London for £28 return (I've now checked the price apologies for the earlier incorrect figure) then I'm not sure how an average person can't afford that? Further if the railway is unaffordable why is ridership continuing to rise?
So exactly how does that thread prove anything like the point that was raised by jones_bangor?
Therefore I'm left asking, again, for a source to back up the assertion that the average man on the street cannot afford rail travel because as far as I can tell they can. In their thousands and possibly millions.
Given how many people use trains, even at weekends (with many trains on a Saturday or Sunday as busy as any peak train in the week), I don't believe for one second that there are many people that can't afford to travel on trains.
Yes, they might find it expensive and wish fares were less, but most can (and do) pay. To some, you're also accepting a potential premium over taking the car (say a family, where it would be cheaper to use one car than have 3/4/5 tickets) for the convenience of avoiding parking, being able to relax etc.
And then there are the advance tickets, the groupsaves, the railcard discounts, the super off peak tickets and so on.
Given the fact that a much bigger HS2 train could fit in hundreds of extra people, I can see how fares will at worst remain the same, at best be cheaper than travelling long distance along the WCML or ECML today.
Yes, they might find it expensive and wish fares were less, but most can (and do) pay. To some, you're also accepting a potential premium over taking the car (say a family, where it would be cheaper to use one car than have 3/4/5 tickets) for the convenience of avoiding parking, being able to relax etc.
And then there are the advance tickets, the groupsaves, the railcard discounts, the super off peak tickets and so on.
Given the fact that a much bigger HS2 train could fit in hundreds of extra people, I can see how fares will at worst remain the same, at best be cheaper than travelling long distance along the WCML or ECML today.
I think it's quite possible that their is a significant minority of people for whom medium to long distance rail travel is off putting or unviable even if they do know how to work the discount system, and their are many more people who would use the railways more if tickets were cheaper.
However as you say there are increasing numbers of people prepared to use rail at the current price level. And since the railways have large running costs, upgrade and renewal costs, and a govt that wants to reduce its contribution to the railways the ticket prices will have to remain at the current levels.
Hopefully as measures to reduce the costs of running the railways and new infrastructure (including HS2) is completed economies of scale will be found to allow fares to come down in price.
If you cut prices, you'd suddenly have the need to build far more than just HS2 and the other projects currently underway!
London would collapse for one thing, although it also has some excellent deals for travellers at off-peak times. Nobody needs to know about the system to, say, get a super-off peak travelcard on a weekend, or be offered 4 tickets for the price of 2 when buying from the ticket window for Groupsave.
One additional benefit for people going to London and the surrounds is the 2 for 1 offers, which are pretty amazing if you want to do the touristy stuff.
But while I know about these things, and believe that in the south east these things are quite well advertised, I have to say that I know little of similar deals if I was to travel to other cities.
London would collapse for one thing, although it also has some excellent deals for travellers at off-peak times. Nobody needs to know about the system to, say, get a super-off peak travelcard on a weekend, or be offered 4 tickets for the price of 2 when buying from the ticket window for Groupsave.
One additional benefit for people going to London and the surrounds is the 2 for 1 offers, which are pretty amazing if you want to do the touristy stuff.
But while I know about these things, and believe that in the south east these things are quite well advertised, I have to say that I know little of similar deals if I was to travel to other cities.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Of course some people cannot afford a return trip to London on a regular basis - that's no different from any time in history though.
I get confused when given the "trains are too expensive for most people to use, but they are overcrowded" argument...
...then again I get confused by the "HS2 won't do anything to relieve packed services into Waterloo, yet we are still going to include the cost of Crossrail2 in the HS2 figures to make it look more expensive than it really is" argument!
I get confused when given the "trains are too expensive for most people to use, but they are overcrowded" argument...
...then again I get confused by the "HS2 won't do anything to relieve packed services into Waterloo, yet we are still going to include the cost of Crossrail2 in the HS2 figures to make it look more expensive than it really is" argument!
Chris125
Established Member
As I suspected a more positive tone from Maria Eagle today:-
"And lets tackle overcrowding on our railways that can make the journey to work such a misery. So lets free up space for new commuter services by moving the growth in longer journeys onto a new north-south rail line. Reducing journey times. Getting more freight off our roads.
But, unlike the Tories, lets use the project as an opportunity to create thousands of new apprenticeships for our young people.
And, unlike the Tories, no blank cheque for any government project. So, as Ed Balls rightly says: we support the idea of a new north-south rail line but, if costs continue to rise and the value for money cannot be demonstrated, we will have to ask if this is the right priority for £50billion pounds.
So I say to David Cameron: get a grip on this project. Get a grip on its budget. And get it back on track.
It seems she add-libbed "and that's why we support HS2" in her conference speech, if anyone was left in any doubt...
I really can't see a problem when the distance between Leeds City and Leeds New Lane is substantially shorter than the 400m trains on HS2 and comparable to the length of IEP's being ordered for the ECML.
Chris
"And lets tackle overcrowding on our railways that can make the journey to work such a misery. So lets free up space for new commuter services by moving the growth in longer journeys onto a new north-south rail line. Reducing journey times. Getting more freight off our roads.
But, unlike the Tories, lets use the project as an opportunity to create thousands of new apprenticeships for our young people.
And, unlike the Tories, no blank cheque for any government project. So, as Ed Balls rightly says: we support the idea of a new north-south rail line but, if costs continue to rise and the value for money cannot be demonstrated, we will have to ask if this is the right priority for £50billion pounds.
So I say to David Cameron: get a grip on this project. Get a grip on its budget. And get it back on track.
It seems she add-libbed "and that's why we support HS2" in her conference speech, if anyone was left in any doubt...
I really can't see a problem when the distance between Leeds City and Leeds New Lane is substantially shorter than the 400m trains on HS2 and comparable to the length of IEP's being ordered for the ECML.
Chris
If HS2 comes in at it's lower budget range (i.e. it doesn't need very much of the contingency funds) it could be possible to build both HS2 and Crossrail 2 for about £50-60bn, meaning that by the time HS2 is built the capacity into most London stations would have been significantly increased over where it was when HS2 was first announced.
Saying that HS2 won't solve overcrowding, but then arguing that HS2 isn't needed because in the future we won't need to travel because we'll all be working at home, is one of the many things that amuses me.
Even suggesting the money is better spent elsewhere confirms that there's increasing demand and the need to do something.
That is unless, despite the fact we're still not working from home 20 years on from the introduction of the Internet (and before that dial-up networking - I set up a BBS in the late 1980s, for example) and now we are more interested in wireless Internet (Wi-Fi or 3G/4G) to keep us connected when we're, well, travelling, demand is going to suddenly start to drop.
In which case we cancel ALL rail expansion projects and just concentrate on routine maintenance, with a longer term plan to scale back the railways like we did in the 60s... (and that worked out well, didn't it!).
HS2 is now being used as a political tool (but it IS conference season), so I don't care too much about MPs using it to score points or win votes - just as long as we eventually get it going.
Last edited:
Chris125
Established Member
Interesting blog from Paul Waugh on the politics surrounding all this: Squaring the Circle on HS2
"The bad blood over this change of tack by Mr Balls still rankles with some in the Shad Cab.
As I said in my WaughRoomMemo today, the briefing swirling around on HS2 last night was pretty intense. On one version I was told, Team Miliband hadn’t quite realised how important the language in the Balls speech was and failed to rein him in. There was even a claim that Balls dumped on HS2 in a pre-emptive revenge for Miliband ignoring Shadow Treasury discipline on housebuilding costs. All these claims were denied vehemently when I put them to sources close to Balls. It’s true that Balls gave Miliband his final speech at 10am yesterday, two hours before it was delivered. But he actually sent the HS2 section two weeks ago and even personally asked Miliband on Sunday if he was happy with the HS2 wording. EdM told him the wording was fine.
At the Indy fringe last night, Ed Balls went even further than in his speech and raised the prospect of housing or other transport projects getting the HS2 cash:
"To use an economics word, money is fungible. What that means is every billion pound we spend on HS2 is a billion pounds we won’t spend on roads or cross-country train links or building new homes or new schools or hospitals….I think a better approach for a Labour Shadow Chancellor is to say ‘we need to know the costs are properly under control, that the benefits are really there, that this would be the best way to spend £50bn which could be used on other transport projects or housing'."
Balls had a glint in his eye, but was he simply trying to bolster his rep as an Iron Chancellor – or is this a genuine shift in policy? Team Miliband say they agreed the tougher language in the conference speech – but did they agree the ad libbing on housing and other alternatives? I’m not sure they did.
What rankles with some is not necessarily the policy detail but the way the Treasury team staged a landgrab. When similar legitimate concerns were raised earlier this year, Team Balls is alleged to have stamped on them and said Labour couldn't put a question mark over HS2.
When you add the fact that the Shadow Chancellor this weekend made clear he still wanted a third runway at Heathrow (a runway that Ed M threatened to resign over in Cabinet), you can see why tensions continue...
UPDATE: In case anyone missed the message, Eagle even departed from the agreed text to say 'And that's why we support HS2!'"
Chris
"The bad blood over this change of tack by Mr Balls still rankles with some in the Shad Cab.
As I said in my WaughRoomMemo today, the briefing swirling around on HS2 last night was pretty intense. On one version I was told, Team Miliband hadn’t quite realised how important the language in the Balls speech was and failed to rein him in. There was even a claim that Balls dumped on HS2 in a pre-emptive revenge for Miliband ignoring Shadow Treasury discipline on housebuilding costs. All these claims were denied vehemently when I put them to sources close to Balls. It’s true that Balls gave Miliband his final speech at 10am yesterday, two hours before it was delivered. But he actually sent the HS2 section two weeks ago and even personally asked Miliband on Sunday if he was happy with the HS2 wording. EdM told him the wording was fine.
At the Indy fringe last night, Ed Balls went even further than in his speech and raised the prospect of housing or other transport projects getting the HS2 cash:
"To use an economics word, money is fungible. What that means is every billion pound we spend on HS2 is a billion pounds we won’t spend on roads or cross-country train links or building new homes or new schools or hospitals….I think a better approach for a Labour Shadow Chancellor is to say ‘we need to know the costs are properly under control, that the benefits are really there, that this would be the best way to spend £50bn which could be used on other transport projects or housing'."
Balls had a glint in his eye, but was he simply trying to bolster his rep as an Iron Chancellor – or is this a genuine shift in policy? Team Miliband say they agreed the tougher language in the conference speech – but did they agree the ad libbing on housing and other alternatives? I’m not sure they did.
What rankles with some is not necessarily the policy detail but the way the Treasury team staged a landgrab. When similar legitimate concerns were raised earlier this year, Team Balls is alleged to have stamped on them and said Labour couldn't put a question mark over HS2.
When you add the fact that the Shadow Chancellor this weekend made clear he still wanted a third runway at Heathrow (a runway that Ed M threatened to resign over in Cabinet), you can see why tensions continue...
UPDATE: In case anyone missed the message, Eagle even departed from the agreed text to say 'And that's why we support HS2!'"
Chris
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,292
Money may be fungible but Balls is apparently too terrified to note that since HS2 delivers income it allows extra borrowing that wouldn't be affordable otherwise.
Because borrowing is a dirty word now thanks to Osborne's "credit card" nonsense.
Because borrowing is a dirty word now thanks to Osborne's "credit card" nonsense.
tbtc
Veteran Member
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"...
I work from home, but even I need to travel around quite regularly - either to have face to face meetings on projects, or to go to events etc.
People working from home all the time would probably go mad. Some communities have considered having places for people to work from and call their office, such a community centre or even a pub, and in London people often do it from a Starbucks or one of the many offices-for-hire. There are now many places where you can 'hot desk' for a small(ish) fee - all because a lot of people simply wouldn't want to work from home.
I'm used to it, and have done it before, but it takes some getting used to. For one, you don't get to leave and go home in the same way, even if the advantage in the morning is rolling out of bed straight to work.
I used to enjoy my commute. It was 35-45 minutes of time I had all to myself. Neither at home, nor at work.
Trust me, in the future, we won't see everyone working from home. At best they might travel shorter distances, but they'll still seek to work away from home. And that's before reminding people that employers distrust staff that aren't visible, often with good reason.
People working from home all the time would probably go mad. Some communities have considered having places for people to work from and call their office, such a community centre or even a pub, and in London people often do it from a Starbucks or one of the many offices-for-hire. There are now many places where you can 'hot desk' for a small(ish) fee - all because a lot of people simply wouldn't want to work from home.
I'm used to it, and have done it before, but it takes some getting used to. For one, you don't get to leave and go home in the same way, even if the advantage in the morning is rolling out of bed straight to work.
I used to enjoy my commute. It was 35-45 minutes of time I had all to myself. Neither at home, nor at work.
Trust me, in the future, we won't see everyone working from home. At best they might travel shorter distances, but they'll still seek to work away from home. And that's before reminding people that employers distrust staff that aren't visible, often with good reason.
Last edited:
Also you have to take into account that not everyone has jobs that enable them to work from home. I can work from home but thats generally when I am on call and can either stay at home longer in the morning or go home earlier in the evening but I can still do emails and that stuff but I do have to go in and I do have to use the trains - pretty hard to run a railway without doing so really
Geezertronic
Established Member
Plus encouraging more people to work from home could have an effect on other businesses such as sandwich shops and even pubs where people will eat and socialise of a lunchtime and after work. Opens up a can of worms me thinks...
I used to work at a site in Solihull which closed and was redeveloped into houses. The local sandwich shop around the corner closed after the construction of the houses as there was no more business either from the business I worked for or the construction crew.
I used to work at a site in Solihull which closed and was redeveloped into houses. The local sandwich shop around the corner closed after the construction of the houses as there was no more business either from the business I worked for or the construction crew.
Yes, I can testify to the fact that I've been a lot better off each month financially purely because I no longer pop out the office to get some fresh air, and spend £2-2.50 on a coffee, sometimes twice a day - and that's before buying lunch from Sainsbury's or Subway.
If more people worked from home, then these places would suddenly struggle and at the moment they're perhaps the only places on the high streets that are actually doing well!
If more people worked from home, then these places would suddenly struggle and at the moment they're perhaps the only places on the high streets that are actually doing well!
Chris125
Established Member
Looking at twitter Ed Millibands press team are apparently briefing against Ed Balls, saying he 'overstepped the mark' regarding HS2....
Chris
Chris
RichmondCommu
Established Member
There are plenty of posters on that thread who have said that they use the coach or private car over the train because train travel is too expensive. If you wish to bury your head in the sand and not read the thread that is up to you of course.
As for the £28 return ticket, that is all well and good if you are able to book weeks if not months in advance. However, what happens if you need to travel down to London next Tuesday (01.10.13) for an interview? I'll tell you what happens; you pay at least £116.80 and that’s assuming the interview is in the afternoon. Are you seriously suggesting that is affordable to the average person in this country?
Have there not been suggestions that HS2 will help reduce the cost of train travel? Its operating costs will be lower than traditional rail. Where journeys are possible on HS2 or the classic network there will be increased competition.
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?
RichmondCommu
Established Member
That's because in my neck of the woods people have no choice but take the train and are therefore forced to pay whatever the DfT demands. It's easy to ignore the fact that people make sacrifices in order to afford to travel to work!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Are you suggesting that the people who posted on that thread are not average people? They appear to be pretty normal in my eyes. At least one of them is a rail enthusiast and even he admits to taking the coach between the South West and London. At lot of people including me use the train because frankly they have no other choice. That doesn't suggest that rail travel is affordable.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Normal and average are not interchangeable. One form of transport being affordable does not mean another cannot be better value. 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.
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?
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?
gordonthemoron
Established Member
Presumably you don't travel on Virgin? Acres of space offpeak
What's the point in running trains every 20 minutes to Birmingham and Manchester if you are not going to fill them? Is it due to the the routes in question having quite a bit of business travel even off peak (with business travelers prepared to pay more) so they can make more money this way than if they filled most of the seats with rock bottom advance fares?
Last edited:
gordonthemoron
Established Member
clock face timetable I expect
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.
Polarbear
Established Member
It really comes down to what one defines as being "average"?
Looking at rail fares from a personal perspective, I've had to re-prioritise my spending due to 2 years pay freeze, followed by 3 years of 1% pay rises. Add to that increased pension payments, in real terms my take home pay has reduced by around 20% in the last 3-4 years & is likely to keep decreasing in real terms in the foreseeable future.
Over the same time frame, fares have generally gone up at a rate above inflation which means the gap between my disposable income & what I can afford in the way of rail travel has widened considerably. I am lucky that I don't have to rely on the train to get to & from work (I use the bus-much slower but oh so much cheaper).
The upshot of this is that I rarely travel by rail these days whereas I used to be a frequent user. My up-coming trip to London has been planned way in advance to make use of advance fares - sorry but when you're on a salary that's significantly below the national average of £26500, an off peak return at a shade under £80 is too much for me.
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. All of the capacity created will have to be utilised so I would expect to see a wide range of fares on both classic & HS routes to suit all users.
As for the increasing use of the rail network, I suspect that is down to a combination of the following;
Looking at rail fares from a personal perspective, I've had to re-prioritise my spending due to 2 years pay freeze, followed by 3 years of 1% pay rises. Add to that increased pension payments, in real terms my take home pay has reduced by around 20% in the last 3-4 years & is likely to keep decreasing in real terms in the foreseeable future.
Over the same time frame, fares have generally gone up at a rate above inflation which means the gap between my disposable income & what I can afford in the way of rail travel has widened considerably. I am lucky that I don't have to rely on the train to get to & from work (I use the bus-much slower but oh so much cheaper).
The upshot of this is that I rarely travel by rail these days whereas I used to be a frequent user. My up-coming trip to London has been planned way in advance to make use of advance fares - sorry but when you're on a salary that's significantly below the national average of £26500, an off peak return at a shade under £80 is too much for me.
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. All of the capacity created will have to be utilised so I would expect to see a wide range of fares on both classic & HS routes to suit all users.
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
- Better marketing by rail companies
- Increasing road congestion
- Faster long distance rail services
- Word of mouth (good rail travel experience)
- A perception that Advance fares are the "normal" fare (many modern day users aren't aware of the likes of Off Peak returns)
- Status