HS2 in the press

[NSEFAN]

HS2 is too expensive as it stands. Everything about railways is too expensive in this country. If the trains on HS2 aren't priced for the masses its a pointless exercise. You don't see other countries building infrastructure and then making it cost the earth to use it. So why are we doing it? Running trains with empty seats is a waste of money so having 16 coaches of seats that will cost £100 a ticket to Birmingham is just so wasteful.

But clearly our trains are not too expensive, as people are prepared to pay for them. If they were too expensive then people wouldn't use them. I agree that building railways is in itself an expensive business, but this country dawdles around with consultation because we're so densely populated that almost every project causes blight to someone. It's only fair that people who lose out are compensated for their losses.

We could of course not build any new lines and just crank up the prices even more to keep people off the busiest trains, but I'm sure we could agree that increasing capacity is preferable to pricing people off the service.

Also, once HS2 is opened, do we really want to repeat the Operation Princess mistake of having tiny short trains "because the demand isn't there yet", only to find the demand rapidly grows and we're back to square one? I don't think fears of 16 car trains running round half empty are founded, since this railway will be around for decades to come. Even if the demand isn't there from day 1 it will almost certainly be there in the long-term.

 

[richieb1971]

Agreed with most of what you say. But still want the seats priced in such a way that hardly anyone will want to drive.

At the moment if I want to go anywhere on the train it costs roughly the same as going by car. But if you add a single passenger in the car with you, the price of the train is doubled. To take congestion off the roads it should cost no more than 50% of the car fuel bill for a train ticket.

How the railway aims to make money with how cheap air tickets are I don't know. If I were going to Edinburgh on HS2 it would cost so much more than air and take 4x longer.

All of the above works on the principles of fairness, not profit. It is also not green to have empty seats. If the seats are vacant they should be sold at discount prices until the pre sale of tickets fills up the trains.

 

[NSEFAN]

What you have described is pretty much advance fares. I believe that we will see these on HS2 as we do on existing intercity routes. As you have said it is not economical to cart around fresh air so it will be the HS2 TOC's interest to get bums on seats.

Also, cost alone is not why people may choose the train over the car. Journey times and relative comfort also come into play. I don't know about you but I'd rather not do a day out to London by car!

 

[richieb1971]

HS2 has no meaning for people as close to London as me. I am only 50 miles north in Bedford.

What I am trying to do is put my case forward to all things that should considered before laying a sleeper on ballast. Railways are only viable in the UK because people are paying the prices being set. But lets be honest, if you had the capacity to run 10 trains an hour at 16 coaches long from Birmingham and the farther north you would take a considerable amount of traffic off the WCML and roads.

And lets be doubly honest.. The government is not encouraging rail travel, they are just building this thing to show the world that the UK can compete on rail travel. I have never heard any government official say that they WANTED to get people off the roads and onto rails.

Also, Scotland should get the HS2 because they want more business up there. I agree that a lot more emphasis should be made on developing Scotland and connecting it. HS2 is an advantageous tool for them. I say put them first for a change, make them feel important.

As for London, its a unique place where the train is encouraged, but anywhere else.. The Car is 10x more appealing than a train even with discomfort figured in.

 

[HilversumNS]

If I were going to Edinburgh on HS2 it would cost so much more than air and take 4x longer.

Are you including the check-in time at the airport and the time you need to get through security, as well as boarding and getting off again?

Although not strictly part of the flight, they need to be added in to make the comparison realistic.

I tend to compare door-to-door times. I can travel from Coventry to Hilversum in 10 hours by car & ferry but using public transport (bus, train, fly then train again) it is 4.5 hours although the flight part is only one hour of that. Eurostar would take 8 hours (4h40 is actually 'train' time)

 

[Holly]

HS2 has no meaning for people as close to London as me. I am only 50 miles north in Bedford.

What I am trying to do is put my case forward to all things that should considered before laying a sleeper on ballast. Railways are only viable in the UK because people are paying the prices being set. But lets be honest, if you had the capacity to run 10 trains an hour at 16 coaches long from Birmingham and the farther north you would take a considerable amount of traffic off the WCML and roads.

And lets be doubly honest.. The government is not encouraging rail travel, they are just building this thing to show the world that the UK can compete on rail travel. I have never heard any government official say that they WANTED to get people off the roads and onto rails.

Also, Scotland should get the HS2 because they want more business up there. I agree that a lot more emphasis should be made on developing Scotland and connecting it. HS2 is an advantageous tool for them. I say put them first for a change, make them feel important.

As for London, its a unique place where the train is encouraged, but anywhere else.. The Car is 10x more appealing than a train even with discomfort figured in.

I tend to simplify it.

Britain has far and away the most expensive railways of any appreciable size in Europe, perhaps in the world. Unless this is 100% due to privatisation, it tells us right there that more railway is needed. Not to mention the shortage of freight paths where they are needed to allow growth.

And once you decide to build a new line through rural areas you might as well build it to HS standards. Loading gauge at least.

Personally I think it is a mistake to build a new HS railway to GC loading gauge instead of building it to a still larger loading gauge so as to future proof the right of way.

 

[Deerfold]

How the railway aims to make money with how cheap air tickets are I don't know. If I were going to Edinburgh on HS2 it would cost so much more than air and take 4x longer.

Are you privy to what prices are going to be charged on HS2? There's been discussion on various threads about what prices might be charged but I've not seen anything official. Many think they will be significantly cheaper than on conventional lines, some think they will be ore expensive.

As with anywhere, how close to an airport you live will influence which works out better. I'd be very surprised it going by HS2 were to take 4 times as long as from anywhere near London.

I used to live on a bus route from Luton airport. I could get cheaper fares by air, but if I wanted to have a decent day out in Edinburgh I needed to stay overnight and factor that cost in too which killed the idea. Starting in central London, I wouldn't consider the plane, even at today's train speeds.

 

[richieb1971]

I'm not privy to any info. If you consider the businessman/woman is the target audience you start to get an idea of where they are going with it.

Then you figure in the price of the construction and the price of the trains, the government is going to want a return on it. Then you consider the trains will be franchised and will want to make profits. This will lead to dirty trains (just look at HS1 trains they are discolored and disgusting to look at). In Japan the trains are white which is the hardest colour to clean and yet they look immaculate.

Culturally we need to shift he emphasis from profit to "Whats best for the country?". At the moment HS2 is all about profit based incentives with no incentives or thoughts given on how to alleviate problems. Hs2 has a good case to alleviate problems, but if they are building it for profit I don't think the country will back it.

The government needs to be more transparent on actual pricing, on actual traffic alleviation, how many trains will be utilized to capacity etc etc. These are the hard facts people want before committing to some Rolls Royce railway that only "business and celebrities" will use. It needs to be the peoples railway even it is franchised.

 

[Deerfold]

I'm not privy to any info. If you consider the businessman/woman is the target audience you start to get an idea of where they are going with it.

Then you figure in the price of the construction and the price of the trains, the government is going to want a return on it.

Then you factor in that the trains will have a far higher capacity than existing trains. And staff costs (and numbers of trains required for a given distance) will be lower due to the lower journey times.

Then you consider the trains will be franchised and will want to make profits. This will lead to dirty trains (just look at HS1 trains they are discolored and disgusting to look at). In Japan the trains are white which is the hardest colour to clean and yet they look immaculate.

Looking at other long distance operators in the UK such as Virgin and Virgin East Coast (up to recently EC) they usually seem to be pretty clean. By HS1 trains are you referring to Eurostar or SouthEastern or both?

 

[po8crg]

The Eurostars are filthy and I have no idea why.

 

[richieb1971]

The Eurostars are filthy and I have no idea why.

As above I am referring mainly to Eurostars. I've walked through St Pancras a few times and seen them in the platforms and its just disgusting what they look like. To have a railway that you want to be proud of you need to at least keep the trains cleaned once a week or so.

I think the blue ones are quite clean, whatever they are called.

 

[AM9]

As above I am referring mainly to Eurostars. I've walked through St Pancras a few times and seen them in the platforms and its just disgusting what they look like. To have a railway that you want to be proud of you need to at least keep the trains cleaned once a week or so.

I think the blue ones are quite clean, whatever they are called.

Well they are the domestic HS trains so similar in some ways to what might be provided for HS2. They are UK loading gauge because they route onto classic lines in Kent but they are just functional outer suburban stock, - just 140mph capable.
The Eurostar class 373 trains are between 19 and 22 years old and have been working continuously since then. They are to be re-liveried to a darker scheme so maybe they are being left as is until then. Inside I have always found them to be well presented.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't recall the SNP starting any stories like that. The Tories did to try and get people to not vote Labour, but I don't see how that's the SNP's fault.

How about Sturgeon sending Salmond onto television to boast about how he would be the one writing Labour's first budget. If there was an action more likely to destroy any chance of labour winning I can't think of one.

Either Sturgeon was an idiot who didn't see that, Salmond broke ranks without permission and went off message, or she/he conspired to do it deliberately to destroy any chance of Labour beating the Tories in England so that they would have a Tory government to rail against for the next five years.
Given both of them are succesful career politicians - I believe the latter to be most likely.

 

[Deerfold]

How about Sturgeon sending Salmond onto television to boast about how he would be the one writing Labour's first budget. If there was an action more likely to destroy any chance of labour winning I can't think of one.

Either Sturgeon was an idiot who didn't see that, Salmond broke ranks without permission and went off message, or she/he conspired to do it deliberately to destroy any chance of Labour beating the Tories in England so that they would have a Tory government to rail against for the next five years.
Given both of them are succesful career politicians - I believe the latter to be most likely.

I hadn't come across that. In any case he wasn't "sent on television" - it was filmed on someone's phone at a party fundraising event - and described as "a joke" by Salmond.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32409909

Quite probably an ill-advised statement but certainly not deliberate.

 

[HSTEd]

Politicians never make such idle jokes in public - especially since any and all events in public are now essentially on television.

 

[Deerfold]

Politicians never make such idle jokes in public - especially since any and all events in public are now essentially on television.

Politicians regularly make mistakes - especially when at hundreds of meetings in the run up to an election. I don't see why you don't think this is one of them.

 

[33Hz]

How the railway aims to make money with how cheap air tickets are I don't know. If I were going to Edinburgh on HS2 it would cost so much more than air and take 4x longer.

All of the above works on the principles of fairness, not profit. It is also not green to have empty seats. If the seats are vacant they should be sold at discount prices until the pre sale of tickets fills up the trains.

This is obviously nonsense - it doesn't take 4x longer now, yet alone when 200 mph + trains are running on the route.

As for cost - it's economics 101. Trains are not running around empty, quite the opposite. That, after all, is the reason for building HS2 in the first place. We don't know what HS2's pricing policy will be, but in France and Germany they have bargain advance fares where you can travel across the country for €19, or you pay a walk up fare more like €190.

As for fairness... As trains can be filled now at current pricing, is it fair to use tax payers' money to subsidise passengers who can clearly afford to pay?

 

[AM9]

How the railway aims to make money with how cheap air tickets are I don't know. If I were going to Edinburgh on HS2 it would cost so much more than air and take 4x longer.

Well take your example:
Easy Jet are offering a flight From Gatwick to Edinburgh tomorrow for £103.
It leaves at 08:25 and arrives at 09:50. Assuming everthing goes well, you will get to the centre of Edinburgh by 10:30-10:45 for another £5 on the tram. You will have paid about £15 from the centre of London to Gatwick and to be sure of boarding that plane, (your ticket is only valid for that flight and the next one to EDI is I think 15:30) you really need to get to the airport by about 07:00, so that's a total of £123 and a total journey time of 4 1/2 hours if all goes well!
If going by rail, you could get the 07:00 for £94, and arrive at 11:22, just 4 hours 22 mins. If money is even tighter there is the 07:08 which takes 30 mins longer but costs just £66.
Now of course not everybody lives in the centre of London or Edinburgh, but far less of the population live near Gatwick or Edinburgh airports and apart form driving to them travelling into central London is a lot easier than getting to the airport by public transport.
So how is rail travel on such a journey that much more expensive and 4x longer even with current non-HS2 services?

 

[33Hz]

Misleading headline?

http://www.cityam.com/216409/directors-call-hs2-track-north-border

 

[Snapper]

New blog on the (re)opening of Parliament & the dying anti Hs2 campaign:

"Today’s Queen’s speech means Parliament is back at work & progress on the Hs2 Hybrid Bill will pick up where it left off – with a slight amendment. One of the Hybrid Bill members lost his seat at the election so a replacement will need to be found for the former Lib-Dem MP for Eastleigh, Mike Thornton. There’s speculation in some circles that his replacement will come from the SNP as they’ve replaced the Lib-Dems as the 3rd largest. We shall have to wait and see"…

More here...

https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/parliaments-back-to-work-the-hs2-bill-moves-on/

 

[33Hz]

I noticed that StopHS2 blogged immediately after the Queen's Speech that HS2 is only going as far as the West Midlands. Deluded.


Also makes an appearance in http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/m...-on-in-opening-of-parliament-speech-1-6766591

 

[BananaRepublic]

...Easy Jet are offering a flight From Gatwick to Edinburgh tomorrow for £103.
It leaves at 08:25 and arrives at 09:50.
Assuming everthing goes well, you will get to the centre of Edinburgh by 10:30-10:45 for another £5 on the tram.
You will have paid about £15 from the centre of London to Gatwick and to be sure of boarding that plane......you really need to get to the airport by about 07:00,
so that's a total of £123 and a total journey time of 4 1/2 hours if all goes well!

If going by rail, you could get the 07:00 for £94, and arrive at 11:22, just 4 hours 22 mins.
If money is even tighter there is the 07:08 which takes 30 mins longer but costs just £66. ....

You made the classic error of not including an allowance for arriving at KX in good time, or for leaving the train and station at the other end.

Also for domestic flights from LGW, I cannot see how you are allowing 1hr 25mins, even with Gatwick's awful security check delays. An hour would still leave enough time to negotiate security and the walk to the gate to be there 20 to 25 minutes prior to scheduled departure time. A bit more time would be needed if using the bag drop for checked luggage though.

London City is better in this regard, as the airport is smaller and easier to negotiate. Much less time needed all round.

....Now of course not everybody lives in the centre of London or Edinburgh.....

Indeed, but unless some sort of range of times is added to allow for home/office to station/airport and v.v., the comparisons are meaningless.

Even if living almost on top of KX, you'd need to add on an absolute minimum of at least 20 minutes, prior to departure (walk to station, negotiate route through station to platform and board train in good time).
A 20 minute tube ride away, will add at least 50+ minutes, prior to departure.

Another factor to consider is the traveller's starting/end point, even if to/from central London.
The London rail departure points are centrally located, where as there are 5 London airports offering services to Edinburgh, albeit some of those having a limited range of flights.
Depending on your starting/end point, it maybe easier to get to the airport than the station, or v.v.

Unless a broad range of such nominal pre-departure time allowances are factored in, simply using terminus/airport departure times will result in meaningless figures.

 

[Deerfold]

You made the classic error of not including an allowance for arriving at KX in good time, or for leaving the train and station at the other end.

Also for domestic flights from LGW, I cannot see how you are allowing 1hr 25mins, even with Gatwick's awful security check delays. An hour would still leave enough time to negotiate security and the walk to the gate to be there 20 to 25 minutes prior to scheduled departure time. A bit more time would be needed if using the bag drop for checked luggage though.

London City is better in this regard, as the airport is smaller and easier to negotiate. Much less time needed all round.

Indeed, but unless some sort of range of times is added to allow for home/office to station/airport and v.v., the comparisons are meaningless.

Even if living almost on top of KX, you'd need to add on an absolute minimum of at least 20 minutes, prior to departure (walk to station, negotiate route through station to platform and board train in good time).
A 20 minute tube ride away, will add at least 50+ minutes, prior to departure.

Another factor to consider is the traveller's starting/end point, even if to/from central London.
The London rail departure points are centrally located, where as there are 5 London airports offering services to Edinburgh, albeit some of those having a limited range of flights.
Depending on your starting/end point, it maybe easier to get to the airport than the station, or v.v.

Unless a broad range of such nominal pre-departure time allowances are factored in, simply using terminus/airport departure times will result in meaningless figures.

Even if you add all the times in you've mentioned the train isn't going to take 4 times as long as the plane which was the accusation that AM9 was refuting.

AM9 has chosen to get to the airport half an hour later than the airlines recommend.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Even if you add all the times in you've mentioned the train isn't going to take 4 times as long as the plane which was the accusation that AM9 was refuting.

Indeed. Only the actual journey time is 4 times longer i.e. sitting in a train versus sitting in a plane, but on it's own both train and plane times are meaningless.

AM9 has chosen to get to the airport half an hour earlier than the airlines recommend.

Provided you've checked in online and don't have checked luggage, all that is required is to be a the gate in good time for boarding, usually 20 - 25 minutes before departure time for this sort of flight.
The difficult bit is negotiating yourself through the airport (which can be busy), the dreadful security delays and finding the gate, which can be a long way at LGW.
Add on another half an hour or more if you know what your doing.
The "advice" from the individual airlines is a cover all, so that the unwary, unfamiliar or just plain incapable can't complain if they're late.

Personally I like to get there an hour before, but also add a contingency for road traffic, as I also do for rail journeys.
Smaller more efficient airports like London City and Southampton are a breeze in comparison.

 

[Deerfold]

Indeed. Only the actual journey time is 4 times longer i.e. sitting in a train versus sitting in a plane, but on it's own both train and plane times are meaningless.


Provided you've checked in online and don't have checked luggage, all that is required is to be a the gate in good time for boarding, usually 20 - 25 minutes before departure time for this sort of flight.
The difficult bit is negotiating yourself through the airport (which can be busy), the dreadful security delays and finding the gate, which can be a long way at LGW.
Add on another half an hour or more if you know what your doing.
The "advice" from the individual airlines is a cover all, so that the unwary, unfamiliar or just plain incapable can't complain if they're late.

Personally I like to get there an hour before, but also add a contingency for road traffic, as I also do for rail journeys.
Smaller more efficient airports like London City and Southampton are a breeze in comparison.

Oops - meant "later", not earlier!

 

[Snapper]

New blog: Virgin Trains & ORR explode anti #hs2 mobs myths about Hs2 capacity 'not needed' & no 'biz case'

"One of the most laughable aspects of the anti Hs2 campaign is the way antis try & pretend there’s no capacity argument for building Hs2. They do this by focusing exclusively on peak time Virgin trains services out of Euston & ignore everything else such as inter regional & local services, freight, or capacity constraints at other major stations on the routes Hs2 will relieve"

More here..

https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/yet

 

[6Gman]

Culturally we need to shift he emphasis from profit to "Whats best for the country?".

And how exactly would massive subsidy/ loss be "best for the country"?

 

[DownSouth]

And how exactly would massive subsidy/ loss be "best for the country"?

Because funding public transport is not lost money, but spent money.

 

[NotATrainspott]

And how exactly would massive subsidy/ loss be "best for the country"?

Because funding public transport is not lost money, but spent money.

I think what 6Gman is trying to say is that we still need to ensure the money we spend is spent wisely, and that he believes private competition is a good way of ensuring that it is. Different people on this forum will have differing opinions on what ensures that resources are allocated as efficiently as possible but we can all agree that in no case is it just a good idea to spend for the sake of spending. Measuring how good public services are by the amount of (or increase in) money spent on them is a recipe for disaster since that will then not cover the fact that the money spent may not be being used wisely. On the railways, it would clearly be very unwise for a government to say that they would increase expenditure by 10% if that extra 10% were spent on replacing rolling stock before it is economically worthwhile, far worse than spending the same but spending it on necessary repairs and infrastructure improvements.

 

[6Gman]

Because funding public transport is not lost money, but spent money.

Sometimes it's just "wasted money".

To give you a few examples:

Bletchley flyover;
Certain extravagant bus stations built in the wrong place and therefore largely ignored by the bus operators;
Many Modernisation Plan diesels;
Modernisation Plan marshalling yards (most of them);
Wiring sidings that are never used by electric locos;
The Channel Tunnel Regional fleets.