HS2 and capacity on classic lines - Spectator Debate

[Realfish]

I caught this debate on the Spectator site prompted by Sir David Higgins' interview in the Telegraph.

I was surprised by one of the comments posted about capacity on the WCML.



In his interview with Benedict Brogan, Sir David Higgins appears to demonstrate a willingness to mislead about the need for HS2. Data from the Department for Transport shows that Virgin trains and East Coast trains are the least overcrowded mainline trains serving London when measured by standing passengers in the morning three hour peak.

While the West Coast Mainline has few spare train paths, it is in a very similar situation to most of the other mainlines serving London. However, London Midland are expected to add three trains in the morning peak and five trains in the evening peak in May 2014 through their Project 110 programme. Further north, the work being done by Network Rail in the Stafford area will allow four extra trains per hour to run in each direction when completed. Two other relatively inexpensive infrastructure changes near Bletchley and north of Rugby would further increase the number of train paths available.

While acknowledging that the Milton Keynes - Euston journey is the most heavily used one on the West Coast Mainline, existing overcrowding on London Midland commuter services could easily be addressed if Virgin trains were also allowed to carry some of these passengers at peak times.


Whilst I am aware of the arguments about crowding (or lack of it) on VT services, I thought that there was only one spare path on the WCML, not the 3 LM (or 4 post Stafford / Norton Bridge) claimed by this poster.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...politicians-of-the-costs-of-dithering-on-hs2/

 

[DownSouth]

What about capacity for freight?

Filling up the passenger trains may take years, but taking families out of the line of fire by shifting road freight to rail can be done now.

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely those small numbers of extra London Midland units for the WCML arriving in the next few months (seven 350/3s AIUI - the other 3 are for use within the Birmingham area) can't provide for three (am) or five (pm) peak extra trains, but mostly strengthening of existing trains to full 12 car length?

In any case, they've been known about for well over 2 years, probably longer within the industry, so presumably all the HS2 capacity calculations and reports already allow for them?

 

[NotATrainspott]

These statements don't take into account the fact that even if capacity increase is possible in the short term, it can't then be increased again in the HS2 timescale. The additional capacity from the WCRM hasn't been completely filled up but it won't be long until that isn't enough and that's what HS2 is designed to solve.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I caught this debate on the Spectator site prompted by Sir David Higgins' interview in the Telegraph.

I was surprised by one of the comments posted about capacity on the WCML.



In his interview with Benedict Brogan, Sir David Higgins appears to demonstrate a willingness to mislead about the need for HS2. Data from the Department for Transport shows that Virgin trains and East Coast trains are the least overcrowded mainline trains serving London when measured by standing passengers in the morning three hour peak.

While the West Coast Mainline has few spare train paths, it is in a very similar situation to most of the other mainlines serving London. However, London Midland are expected to add three trains in the morning peak and five trains in the evening peak in May 2014 through their Project 110 programme. Further north, the work being done by Network Rail in the Stafford area will allow four extra trains per hour to run in each direction when completed. Two other relatively inexpensive infrastructure changes near Bletchley and north of Rugby would further increase the number of train paths available.

While acknowledging that the Milton Keynes - Euston journey is the most heavily used one on the West Coast Mainline, existing overcrowding on London Midland commuter services could easily be addressed if Virgin trains were also allowed to carry some of these passengers at peak times.


Whilst I am aware of the arguments about crowding (or lack of it) on VT services, I thought that there was only one spare path on the WCML, not the 3 LM (or 4 post Stafford / Norton Bridge) claimed by this poster.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...politicians-of-the-costs-of-dithering-on-hs2/

Oh my god. HS2 is not for today's passengers it is for passengers in 15 years time..... Just cos we can get a few paths in 2014 does not mean the WCML will be okay in 2035!!!!!

 

[Oscar]

Would it not be wise to commission some serious impartial research into the causes of passenger growth since 1990 (thus also including the last years of British Rail) to establish whether this growth is likely to continue in the coming decades, on which sections of the network and at what rate, in the context of a variety of different scenarios?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Would it not be wise to commission some serious impartial research into the causes of passenger growth since 1990 (thus also including the last years of British Rail) to establish whether this growth is likely to continue in the coming decades, on which sections of the network and at what rate, in the context of a variety of different scenarios?

Extensive research has been done. Indicators are increased wealth, longer commuting, increased environmental awareness, increase in road travel costs. Amongst others, none of these are expected to reduce. Therefore they have extrapolated the increase and quartered it for the next decade. Already their estimates have been shown to be lower than reality.

 

[Oscar]

Could you post a link to some research please?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Could you post a link to some research please?

It is all part of wider research rather than an individual case, a google search should provide some of the work.

 

[Oscar]

I am aware that the reasons for growth in passenger numbers you state (as well as the advent of digital technology, the increasing numbers of young people living in metropolitan areas and the decline in status of cars for young people) have come out of research and that HS2 is working on what it considers a conservative estimate of 2.2% year on year growth. However, there are some factors which do not seem to have been considered, including:
- time and money for travel is limited - how much longer will the travel market grow for? The growth in passenger numbers is based on a significant number of additional journeys as well as modal shift.
- is a significant increase in London commuting realistic in the long term or at all desirable?
- is the significant proportion younger people currently not running cars likely to do so when they are older and their lifestyle changes?

 

[The Planner]

Whilst I am aware of the arguments about crowding (or lack of it) on VT services, I thought that there was only one spare path on the WCML, not the 3 LM (or 4 post Stafford / Norton Bridge) claimed by this poster.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...politicians-of-the-costs-of-dithering-on-hs2/

They are talking out of their orifice as there are not 4 extra paths per hour after Norton Bridge, it is 2 at best.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I am aware that the reasons for growth in passenger numbers you state (as well as the advent of digital technology, the increasing numbers of young people living in metropolitan areas and the decline in status of cars for young people) have come out of research and that HS2 is working on what it considers a conservative estimate of 2.2% year on year growth. However, there are some factors which do not seem to have been considered, including:

- time and money for travel is limited - how much longer will the travel market grow for? The growth in passenger numbers is based on a significant number of additional journeys as well as modal shift.

The travel market will at the very least grow with the population of the country. Our population growth rate is currently higher than the EU average due to immigration and a higher birth rate. The assumption is also that the road and airport networks will not be seeing as much expansion in the next half-century as they have had in the last half-century. As a result, the increased travel demands from an increased population will predominantly shift onto rail. This is very much the intention of the Government because rail is without question the most efficient way of transporting reasonable numbers of people around the country.

- is a significant increase in London commuting realistic in the long term or at all desirable?

HS2 is not designed to be a predominantly commuter line. There is no way for us to stop it happening, unless we introduced draconian peak time ticket restrictions on people whose address of employment is within the M25. One of the justifications behind HS2 is that it will make it easier for businesses to relocate outside of London, as many business do already but only to the area which will be surrounded by East-West rail. These places are very attractive to businesses as they have easy access to other businesses within London due to the frequent and fast rail links, and they have easy access to the talent pool of people who would otherwise commute to London to work. The businesses have easy access to London but they do not have to pay London salaries and rents in these places such as the M4 corridor or Cambridge (an area now promoted as the 'Tech Triangle' by the government due to the proliferation of international technology companies within the area, such as O2 Telefonica or ARM). HS2 puts the West Midlands, Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside within a short and dependable (due to the vastly better reliability of HSR versus the classic lines) journey of London.

When these companies can relocate to the HS2 cities, it reduces the demand for commuting into London slightly and provides massive economic benefit to the cities. These companies' employees would surely commute into the city centres but the distances they would have to travel would be significantly shorter. With the improved local and regional rail links which are being implemented today, most notably the Northern Hub works, towns all around the area will have even easier access to the places of work by train, thus improving the economic performance of these towns and reversing the current problem of the brain-drain where young, university-educated people from these towns must leave for the London commuter belt in order to find professional work.

- is the significant proportion younger people currently not running cars likely to do so when they are older and their lifestyle changes?

In the HS2 timescale it is certain that advances in electric cars and autonomous vehicles will make car travel less environmentally damaging than it is today. However, they will still never be as or more efficient than public transport for popular journeys as they still involve inefficiencies in batteries, tyres and the sheer amount of space they require for parking. All forms of public transport will see their energy efficiency increase at the same time, but there is no more feasibly efficient way of transporting several hundred people at 160km/h than an electric train running on existing tracks powered by 25,000 volts from overhead line. Maglevs aren't sensible in Europe for InterCity so commuter ones are out of the question.

The UK is moving back towards a higher-density society where public transport wins out more and more versus the car. The provision of public transport across the country is only going to improve in quantity and quality and it will still be a more effective way of moving around, regardless of age or social status. Cars will still have a niche and most families will likely still have access to one but if they are able to make a journey by public transport they most certainly will. If you were given the option of taking two young children on an InterCity journey with a spouse, you would avoid air travel if at all possible and you wouldn't want to drive either, leaving the comfort and of the train as by far the best option.

 

[Bantamzen]

HS2 is not designed to be a predominantly commuter line. There is no way for us to stop it happening, unless we introduced draconian peak time ticket restrictions on people whose address of employment is within the M25.

One of the biggest reasons that many councils (and a sizable number of the public) in the Midlands & North are either sceptical about, or opposed to the current HS2 plans are because it's widely perceived that HS2 will simply become just that, and an expensive one to boot. And this is the problem with the largely London facing platforms & services currently on the plans. And let's be honest here, if other TOCs continue to offer services via WCML / MML / ECML at lower costs many people might still choose the slower options, leaving HS2 as a largely business service.

One of the justifications behind HS2 is that it will make it easier for businesses to relocate outside of London, as many business do already but only to the area which will be surrounded by East-West rail. These places are very attractive to businesses as they have easy access to other businesses within London due to the frequent and fast rail links, and they have easy access to the talent pool of people who would otherwise commute to London to work. The businesses have easy access to London but they do not have to pay London salaries and rents in these places such as the M4 corridor or Cambridge (an area now promoted as the 'Tech Triangle' by the government due to the proliferation of international technology companies within the area, such as O2 Telefonica or ARM). HS2 puts the West Midlands, Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside within a short and dependable (due to the vastly better reliability of HSR versus the classic lines) journey of London.

Although HS2 will offer a faster, higher capacity & more frequent service as above there is genuine doubt that it will actually bring these business relocations that form a key part of the business case. Some of the commuting times, especially from the Midlands may just simply shift the commuter belt further North rather than delivering economic benefits for the regions connected.

So if HS2 is not to be scuppered (and this remains a possibility), then it has to deliver a bit more than it is seeming to do at the moment. So things like promoting the possibility of European services, and even more importantly looking more closely at better South West / Midlands / North inter-city connectivity, possibly running services through these cities to other destinations rather than terminating London services at them. This might mean adding in more spurs to existing section of tracks, and that more HS services would run on a combination of HS & existing track, with half sets operating them to account for shorter platforms. For example at Leeds linking the HS track with existing south of Leeds New Lane to allow some services to go through Leeds City & beyond. A similar connection might also be desirable at Manchester, although more problematic with the line rising at Ardwick which would probably mean having to build a spur over the approach to Piccadilly to link with the lines heading West / North West. And I acknowledge that capacity through these two cities is an issue, but then we have 20 years to solve them so it’s not insurmountable. Birmingham could go down the way of the Grand Central project, and although this is very expensive maybe more local & private funding could be sought to help supplement that?

The way I see it is if the current proposals are stuck rigidly to, then HS2's future usefulness & expandability maybe be rather limited & may not prove to be as good value to taxpayers as it really should (and it's tax payers across the country that are helping fund the project so their views cannot be discounted). It might be the case that more funds will need to be sought to potentially allow additional route opportunities, but it's better to get it right and spend more than scrimp & get it wrong.

 

[gordonthemoron]

European connectivity will remain a red herring until the UK becomes part of Schengen which I can't see happening with the Daily Mail running the country

 

[HSTEd]

And let's be honest here, if other TOCs continue to offer services via WCML / MML / ECML at lower costs many people might still choose the slower options, leaving HS2 as a largely business service.

Despite what many claim, it appears that a price war between the conventional operators and the HS2 operator can only end one way - the Conventional operator is crushed beneath the economies of scale and more efficient modern infrastructure of the high speed operator. Attempting to draw parallels to things like the current London Midland/Virgin market splitting is misleading because London Midland can move people far more cheaply than Virgin - this is not the case with HS2 vs Conventional Intercity.

Lower staffing costs, lower train maintenance costs, more efficiently utilised infrastructure, reduced rolling stock capital costs (due to far fewer vehicles necessary) and so on.

HS2 will be cheaper than conventional rail until (atleast) such time as it is almost full (until then it has no reason to attempt to restrict demand by pricing it off), which will not be for quite a while after Phase 2.
Also there will be no paths available for large scale intercity travel on the conventional main lines since you can guarantee that the commuter operators will make a play for the bulk of the paths they use now.

 

[The Ham]

I am aware that the reasons for growth in passenger numbers you state (as well as the advent of digital technology, the increasing numbers of young people living in metropolitan areas and the decline in status of cars for young people) have come out of research and that HS2 is working on what it considers a conservative estimate of 2.2% year on year growth. However, there are some factors which do not seem to have been considered, including:
- time and money for travel is limited - how much longer will the travel market grow for? The growth in passenger numbers is based on a significant number of additional journeys as well as modal shift.
- is a significant increase in London commuting realistic in the long term or at all desirable?
- is the significant proportion younger people currently not running cars likely to do so when they are older and their lifestyle changes?

Based on the passenger growth numbers since 2009 (when the HS2 model was started) we are already looking at about 80% of the passenger numbers which were anticipated for the year of opening of Phase 1 (when it should have been about 72% if the model was on track) and about 70% of those for the year of opening of Phase 2.

The market therefore doesn't need to grow very much for very long to hit the phase 1 growth predictions, for instance just 5 more years (to 2018) of about 5% growth would do it. Even if growth started to fall away at 0.5% per year from the current 5% we'd still hit the phase 1 "target" only a few years later in 2022 (by which point the growth rate would be just 0.5% and below the expected rate of population growth and therefore would be very unlikely to drop much further, or in fact that fast towards the end of that period).

If the growth rate fell by 15% per year (which would still be a fairly large drop but probably a more realistic way in which the growth rate would fall) then we still hit the "target" in 2023 (by which point the growth rate would be just under 1%). If this growth rate decrease continued (and assuming no uplift due to the opening of Phase 1), by the time Phase 2 was due to be open the growth rate would have fallen to 0.1% per year but the passenger numbers would only be about 7% short of the total for phase 2 in the model.

 

[tbtc]

Since we now have separate threads for different HS2 topics, I'll try to avoid the "HS2 - good or bad" side of this that we seem to be slipping into and focus on the point in the OP.

There are spare seats on the WCML and ECML at the moment, no argument. There are lines that need capacity increases much sooner. This is why we are focussing current investment on Crossrail and Thameslink, which will add a lot of extra seats into Paddington/ London Bridge/ Liverpool Street/ St Pancras (and therefore free up capacity on some other lines too - e.g. Abbey Wood passengers taking Crossrail into central London will free up paths through Greenwick into Canon Street).

But if we start adding in the services to Bolton/ Shrewsbury/ Blackpool/ Middlesbrough etc that the next WCML/ ECML franchises may see commitments to then we'll run out of space in the 2010s, well before HS2 is going to start.

Another problem is the quote that "While acknowledging that the Milton Keynes - Euston journey is the most heavily used one on the West Coast Mainline" - this is a busy route for commuting, but MK is hampered by most of the fast trains passing through non-stop. HS2 should allow every "classic" service up the WCML to stop at Milton Keynes, so allow local capacity to meet local demand (rather than being dictated by cramming in fast Manchester/ Birmingham trains through).

 

[NotATrainspott]

One of the biggest reasons that many councils (and a sizable number of the public) in the Midlands & North are either sceptical about, or opposed to the current HS2 plans are because it's widely perceived that HS2 will simply become just that, and an expensive one to boot. And this is the problem with the largely London facing platforms & services currently on the plans. And let's be honest here, if other TOCs continue to offer services via WCML / MML / ECML at lower costs many people might still choose the slower options, leaving HS2 as a largely business service.

Although there could be some competition between the two, I don't see it being large enough to reduce HS2 passenger numbers significantly. Once the initial capital cost of HS2 is covered, the operational cost will be far lower than any of the existing lines as all infrastructure will be new and well-designed for the job. Since the remainder classic services will inevitably be slowed down due to the additional stops, the difference is journey time between the classic lines and HS2 will increase even more. As the railways remain ultimately under the control of Government, it can be ensured that each post-HS2 franchise does what it is supposed to do, including the high-speed franchise or franchises.

Although HS2 will offer a faster, higher capacity & more frequent service as above there is genuine doubt that it will actually bring these business relocations that form a key part of the business case. Some of the commuting times, especially from the Midlands may just simply shift the commuter belt further North rather than delivering economic benefits for the regions connected.

This is would represent the worst-case scenario for the HS2 network. However, HS2 is not being built on a blank canvas where we're only building it because we feel like it. If HS2 is not built, it would not increase the chances of businesses relocating away from London. Instead London would still grow and grow at the expense of the other cities. The worst-case scenario for HS2 is that Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham would become home to thousands of high-paid commuters to London (as York is today to some extent), who would spend much of their London salaries up in the North on houses and other paraphernalia of modern life. If we don't build HS2, these same people would be doing the same thing but they would be forced to move closer to London in the overheated SE property bubble, thus reducing their disposable income and preventing it being spent on more useful tangible things which would improve our economy.

So if HS2 is not to be scuppered (and this remains a possibility), then it has to deliver a bit more than it is seeming to do at the moment. So things like promoting the possibility of European services, and even more importantly looking more closely at better South West / Midlands / North inter-city connectivity, possibly running services through these cities to other destinations rather than terminating London services at them. This might mean adding in more spurs to existing section of tracks, and that more HS services would run on a combination of HS & existing track, with half sets operating them to account for shorter platforms. For example at Leeds linking the HS track with existing south of Leeds New Lane to allow some services to go through Leeds City & beyond. A similar connection might also be desirable at Manchester, although more problematic with the line rising at Ardwick which would probably mean having to build a spur over the approach to Piccadilly to link with the lines heading West / North West. And I acknowledge that capacity through these two cities is an issue, but then we have 20 years to solve them so it’s not insurmountable. Birmingham could go down the way of the Grand Central project, and although this is very expensive maybe more local & private funding could be sought to help supplement that?

HS2 being scuppered isn't really that likely. All three parties supported HSR in principle between London and the North in their 2010 manifestos and unless they are going to advocate no national transport infrastructure investment at all in their 2015 manifestos, they're going to support HS2 in 2015 as well. More airports and more motorways is not a sustainable solution to transport issues and we're investing much more in the classic network than we are in HS2.

HS2 Ltd have ensured the possibility of Continental services throughout the development of HS2. Otherwise there would be little reason to build the HS1-HS2 link and to build it as part of Phase 1. All Phase 1 station designs as submitted to Parliament include the capability for security and immigration control and there would be no reason for the Phase 2 stations not to have the same.

The plans for HS2 involve a hub-and-spoke network, which is the optimum solution for HS2 when in our country it is not trivial to connect the classic and HSR networks together. If we want to send a useful number of trains through the cities and beyond to local-ish destinations, such as the East Coast extensions through Leeds, then we throw away the benefits of an increased loading gauge for the vast majority and money-earning capability of the service. HS2 is much more like a Shinkansen than it is an LGV: there are a limited number of through services where it is an ideal or only solution, but in general the HSR network remains separate and thus operationally simple and optimal.

The cost of through stations in city centres is enormous as they require effectively twice the investment. 'Spur' networks like HS2, where stations are mostly spurs off the mainline, are possible because there is plenty capacity to run dedicated services between stations without as much track utilisation, such as Birmingham-Manchester or in future Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh. There is therefore no real reason to run through-city services on the current network.

The way I see it is if the current proposals are stuck rigidly to, then HS2's future usefulness & expandability maybe be rather limited & may not prove to be as good value to taxpayers as it really should (and it's tax payers across the country that are helping fund the project so their views cannot be discounted). It might be the case that more funds will need to be sought to potentially allow additional route opportunities, but it's better to get it right and spend more than scrimp & get it wrong.

Where HS2 is on embankment, at-grade or cutting it is theoretically possible to add junctions at a later date. Not only this, but once the bill is passed it is still possible to amend the route before construction works begin, which is how Stratford International was added to HS1 despite not being in the CTRL Act. If we get the big picture of the bill through, it can be modified later when circumstances require. It's like the Crossrail to Reading argument - the difficult and expensive bit are the tunnels from Paddington to Stratford and Abbey Wood, and adding extraneous sections now creates more risk when it's still possible to add them at a later date.

 

[Bantamzen]

Just picking up on a couple of points made above. Firstly, there is growing doubt in quite a few areas as to the economic benefits of HS2, rightly or wrongly be it. This pressure might just grow enough for there to be some serious opposition in the Houses to put some serious hurdles in the way, even though the main parties are committed to the project. Just a few months can be a long time in politics, especially as you start to approach an election. Personally I think it would boost the project's appeal if at least in principle, Euro services were better mooted (I know it's there in the technical specs, but few people dive in that deeply) & potential spurs were at least in discussion even if they are not in the plans yet.

As for the competition to HS2, it is very possible that it will become the only viable North-South service due to existing mains being made more suburban services (although I suspect they will still look to have some semi-fasts through to London), but don't kid yourself that it will be competitive in price. All over Europe where this kind of thing as happened, HS services have usually been quite a bit more expensive than their predecessors. So unless there is an early plan to cap prices, and a commitment that infrastructure costs aren’t demanded back too quickly, then the price might just dictate how & by whom the line is used.

 

[HSTEd]

All over Europe where this kind of thing as happened, HS services have usually been quite a bit more expensive than their predecessors. So unless there is an early plan to cap prices, and a commitment that infrastructure costs aren’t demanded back too quickly, then the price might just dictate how & by whom the line is used.

This is partially a result of the fact that High Speed rail in Europe is literally conventional rail but faster.
They already have access to all the various means of cutting costs, and they have lines that tend to be worked far less intensely than they are here.

They have attempted to cut costs by using existing city centre stations and the like whereas the model being pursued by HS2 is that of the Shinkansen - segregation wherever possible.

A 12-car Class 350 will seat something around 687 people.
A 400m long TGV Duplex set could easily seat something like 1300 in superior comfort. (Unitary 400m DD trainsets are feasible, consider that the Eurostar masses about the same as a pair of TGV Duplex sets)

A 350 will probably take roughly 2hr30 to Manchester, giving us a roughly 6hr 'cycle' time. The HSR set can do the same journey in roughly 70 minutes, giving us a 3hr cycle time. That means that the 350 formation takes to move 687 people, you can move 2600 because you can make multiple trips.
That means to move the same number of people conventionally you will need 6.7 times as many trainsets.

12-car Cl350 costs something like £18m. Which means 6.7 of them costs £120.7m
A 200m TGV Duplex costs roughly €28m (£23m) which means a double formation is going to cost at most ~£50m even including the costs from the small order of such a bespoke concept. (SNCF might want some though for Sud Est, you never know).

So you save money on rolling stock capital.

And instead of 6.7 crews, you now need one crew, so you save money on that score as well. (Especially since HS2 is likely going to be DOO thanks to its pervasive electronic train monitoring system).

And now infrastructure:
While the capital cost is apparently very high you have to couch it in terms of the enormous cost of maintaining existing infrastructure.
18tph needs something like 8-10 platform faces, and it only has to merge into a double track formation.
Such a station is far simpler than one that has a similar number of platform faces but merges into four tracks, just try and sketch out the crossovers and see what I mean.

So you save all money on all three big cost-counts: Staffing, INfrastructure and Train Capital Costs.

As to the 'budget market' remaining with conventional rail, people who don't care about how long they take to arrive don't take the train, they take coaches.
Trying to beat the coach market at its own game is not going to end well, only HSR really has a chance thanks to its lower seat.km costs.

 

[Oscar]

High speed rail on the Continent is expensive at least in part because it is run on a commercial basis, whereas local services tend to be heavily subsidised. However, the limited number of stops on high speed services in a country with a high population density such as Britain (meaning fewer potential passengers) and the higher energy costs are likely to increase the costs of running high speed services.

 

[HSTEd]

Energy costs are a rounding error on the cost of provision of a service.

Then theres that the Class 390 uses as much energy per seat km at 200kmh as a TGV duplex does as 320.

 

[MarkyT]

This is partially a result of the fact that High Speed rail in Europe is literally conventional rail but faster.
They already have access to all the various means of cutting costs, and they have lines that tend to be worked far less intensely than they are here.

They have attempted to cut costs by using existing city centre stations and the like whereas the model being pursued by HS2 is that of the Shinkansen - segregation wherever possible.

Most continental European railways have the great advantage that their classic infrastructure is generally built to a similar loading gauge as the new high speed routes. Hence, given suitable electrification, high speed service can be extended easily to many off line destinations without the need for special 'classic compatible' trains (except in Spain where, like Japan, track gauge poses a problem). Also this allowed Europeans to develop their infrastructure more incrementally with new trains building traffic whilst using long segments of classic route pending completion of the next high speed extension.

It could be argued that HS2 need not be built to continental loading gauge at all, but that would preclude future services between our limited number of core 'captive' stations in major cities to and from Europe by a wide variety of possible operators, using standard European trains, and would also not allow the super peak busting domestic double-deckers that can be accommodated within the larger profile, and which can make available large numbers of yield managed cheap seats off peak to really push modal transfer from domestic air. The cost saved in engineering the line only to classic British loading gauge whilst retaining the high speed aspiration would be minimal and the 'classic compatible' train concept allows service to be provided beyond the dedicated network anyway.

 

[Oscar]

Another reason why Continental long distance fares may seem to have increased considerably over the last 10-15 years is that the operators have moved from a kilometre based fares system to a high standard price and significantly cheaper yield managed fares. For example, the price of a walk-up single from Milan to Rome has roughly doubled from around 46 € to 86 € in the last ten or so years, but inflexible tickets are available in advance for 29 € / 39 € / 49 € / 59 € etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another reason why Continental long distance fares may seem to have increased considerably over the last 10-15 years is that the operators have moved from a kilometre based fares system to a high standard price and significantly cheaper yield managed fares. For example, the price of a walk-up single from Milan to Rome has roughly doubled from around 46 € to 86 € in the last ten or so years, but inflexible tickets are available in advance for 29 € / 39 € / 49 € / 59 € etc.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A 200m TGV Duplex costs roughly €28m (£23m) which means a double formation is going to cost at most ~£50m even including the costs from the small order of such a bespoke concept. (SNCF might want some though for Sud Est, you never know).

Oh, SNCF have been running 2x200m Duplexes on the Sud-Est for a while now and I'm sure I remember seeing something on the internet that said they were seriously considering replacing the two middle power cars with powered passenger trailer units for the extra 10% capacity it would bring. I can't find it now anymore, which is a shame, but I definitely remember seeing it. As a result your suggestion might not be as far-fetched as you might think.

EDIT: Oh, and SNCF want an AGV Duplex as well so they can eke out the whole 400m length of the train for passenger accommodation.
And I found something about the TGV Duplex Grande Capacite project.

 

[Kettledrum]

existing overcrowding on London Midland commuter services could easily be addressed if Virgin trains were also allowed to carry some of these passengers at peak times.


Whilst I am aware of the arguments about crowding (or lack of it) on VT services, I thought that there was only one spare path on the WCML, not the 3 LM (or 4 post Stafford / Norton Bridge) claimed by this poster.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...politicians-of-the-costs-of-dithering-on-hs2/

I'm afraid I fell about laughing at the use of the word "easily"

Yes - Some of the present over crowding could be addressed but the government has incurred all the cost and political pain because there is no easy long term solution. All the reasons are set out in the very lengthy reports that have been written on the subject.

 

[eps200]

One of the biggest reasons that many councils (and a sizable number of the public) in the Midlands & North are either sceptical about, or opposed to the current HS2 plans are because it's widely perceived that HS2 will simply become just that, and an expensive one to boot. And this is the problem with the largely London facing platforms & services currently on the plans. And let's be honest here, if other TOCs continue to offer services via WCML / MML / ECML at lower costs many people might still choose the slower options, leaving HS2 as a largely business service.

Although HS2 will offer a faster, higher capacity & more frequent service as above there is genuine doubt that it will actually bring these business relocations that form a key part of the business case. Some of the commuting times, especially from the Midlands may just simply shift the commuter belt further North rather than delivering economic benefits for the regions connected.

So if HS2 is not to be scuppered (and this remains a possibility), then it has to deliver a bit more than it is seeming to do at the moment. So things like promoting the possibility of European services, and even more importantly looking more closely at better South West / Midlands / North inter-city connectivity, possibly running services through these cities to other destinations rather than terminating London services at them. This might mean adding in more spurs to existing section of tracks, and that more HS services would run on a combination of HS & existing track, with half sets operating them to account for shorter platforms. For example at Leeds linking the HS track with existing south of Leeds New Lane to allow some services to go through Leeds City & beyond. A similar connection might also be desirable at Manchester, although more problematic with the line rising at Ardwick which would probably mean having to build a spur over the approach to Piccadilly to link with the lines heading West / North West. And I acknowledge that capacity through these two cities is an issue, but then we have 20 years to solve them so it’s not insurmountable. Birmingham could go down the way of the Grand Central project, and although this is very expensive maybe more local & private funding could be sought to help supplement that?

The way I see it is if the current proposals are stuck rigidly to, then HS2's future usefulness & expandability maybe be rather limited & may not prove to be as good value to taxpayers as it really should (and it's tax payers across the country that are helping fund the project so their views cannot be discounted). It might be the case that more funds will need to be sought to potentially allow additional route opportunities, but it's better to get it right and spend more than scrimp & get it wrong.

Have you read 20 miles more, small addition would add Liverpool and warington to the captive lines and allow a javelin style service Liverpool > Warrington > Manchester airport > Manchester picadily. So long as care is taken there is room to leave passive provision at Manchester picadily for a triangle facing east leaving room for a HS trans penning route in future that could reach leeds.

In regards Birmingham there is the small change posible adding a curson street to new street chord this would allow XC to run CCs using the northern branches where appropriate. (possibly those CC sets left over after phase 2 goes in, cascading IEP to newly electric classic routes and releasing capacity for more stoppers.

These the sort of changes you mean?

 

[Bantamzen]

Have you read 20 miles more, small addition would add Liverpool and warington the captive and allow a javelin style service Liverpool > Warrington > Manchester airport > Manchester picadily. So long as care is taken there is room to leave passive provision at Manchester picadily for a triangle facing east leaving room for a HS trans penning route in future that could reach leeds.

In regards Birmingham there is the small change posible adding a curson street to new street chord this would allow XC to run CCs using the northern branches where appropriate. (possibly those CC sets left over after phase 2 goes in, cascading IEP to newly electric classic routes and releasing capacity for more stoppers.

These the sort of changes you mean?

Yes, these are the sorts of things I'm hoping to see from HS2. The overall cost of the project will be at lot easier to swallow if cities like Liverpool had a plug in, as well as having spurs onto & off HS2 that would allow Trans-Pennine / Cross-Country services type services to run Javelin type routes west-east, south-west to north-east etc (even if they started at just 1tph).

 

[eps200]

Also saw a proposal to set Crewe up to facilitate joining and splitting classics there it is long enough, that seems very sensible for saving on paths later for example if the NW coast ever gets wired it wouldn't need an extra path for it's classic set.

Even if that isn't cost effective right now passive provisions should certainly go in.

 

[6Gman]

Isn't there another problem with Virgin picking up the MK traffic, illustrated by the 18.10 Euston - North Wales train.

This leaves Euston Full, and with a few standing.

From MK the rear unit is usually about 10% occupied.

Does it really make sense to run Voyagers from Euston to Chester and beyond to provide capacity for the first 30 minutes of the journey?