The 'Stop Hs2' campaign's dirty tricks.

[Waverley125]

Uxbridge, GL is 18.5 miles from Charing Cross. Within an 18.5 mile radius of City Square, Leeds are:

Leeds (pop 800k)
Bradford (pop 500k)
Wakefield (pop 80k)
Five Towns (pop 240k)
Halifax (pop 80k)
Heavy Woolen District (pop 250k)
Elland & Brighouse (pop 50k)

Total Pop: 2 million

plus in the Leeds TTWA you have the likes of Barnsley, Huddersfield & York (another 500k) that are just over 20 miles away.

 

[HSTEd]

The 675,000 figure includes Long Eaton....in Derbyshire! Use the same radius from Coventry and you can include Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth, Bedworth, Nuneaton and Hinckley for good measure...550,000 at least.

Frankly Derby is not that far from being subsumed into Greater Nottingham itself, it is hard to tell where Nottingham stops and Derby starts driving down the A52 these days.

As for Coventry loosing out.... how many seats are typically used by Coventry-London journeys (the only ones negatively affected by HS2) at 3tph currently compared to the number of seats available if they were to have 1tph shared only with Wolverhampton (and people in a hurry would probably change at Birmingham anyway)?

I would imagine the available seats per hour would not drop that precipitously.

How long will it take to get to the station from the likes of Leigh? Long distance commuting would only be viable if you had a car to get you to te station (which would increase congestion). One of the key points of HS2 is to bring jobs to the north not the south. Long distance commuting is bad for the environment and bad for the health - you are still looking at a total of at least 4hrs travelling a day 'door to door'

People have shown a willingness to commute such long time distances already, as you can see with the piles of people at places like Grantham waiting for trains to London every morning, and the East Coast services they take take 1hr14 each way and then they have to get into the city proper after they arrive.
Once you include the drive/bike to the station we are already in that ballpark, just that the people commuting will be a hundred miles further north than they were before, which reduces house prices from the insanely bloated levels in the current "commuter belt".

And if the people in Manchester can cheaply commute to London I would argue that a job in London is almost as good as one in Manchester, and if Manchester is really the dynamic centre it appears to be it might even be able to pull some Londoners to commute in reverse.

Manchester ends up where Birmingham is and Birmingham ends up in North London somewhere in travel time terms. (How long is Euston to Watford or Amersham on the tube?)

For all the calls that upgrading the WCML would be too expensive or disruptive, no-one bats an eyelid to all the other big projects happening.

Electrification can easily proceed in 8 hour posessions almost at convenience of the railway, the sort of massive track replacements and new lines required by the alternative upgrade proposals require enormous heavy engineering works on active railway liens, which takes us back to the insane disruption of the first WCRM era.

Just out of interest HSTed, where do you live and work?

I live outside uni time in Grantham (so if anything I stand to loose out by loss of some Leeds services) but I attend university in Manchester so I have to admit the possibility of some bias.

But then originally I wanted a Shinkansen style line stopping at Coventry, Rugby and Milton Keynes in addition to Birmingham Airport and OOC.

 

[Metrailway]

As for Coventry loosing out.... how many seats are typically used by Coventry-London journeys (the only ones negatively affected by HS2) at 3tph currently compared to the number of seats available if they were to have 1tph shared only with Wolverhampton (and people in a hurry would probably change at Birmingham anyway)?

I would imagine the available seats per hour would not drop that precipitously.

A 1/5th of passengers who use Coventry go to London Euston. Coventry is also the 5th largest long distance passenger flow into London Euston. Anyone who uses Coventry regularly will know how well London services are used by locals.

Using HS2's Technical Appendix - Appendix 2: Day 1 Train Service Assumptions for Demand Modelling the 1tph to/from Coventry will call at Liverpool Lime St, Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Crewe, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Sandwell & Dudley, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Milton Keynes Central, Watford Junction, and London Euston. So it wouldn't just be Wolverhampton and the remaining InterCity service to London from Coventry will be 10 minutes slower as well. The frequency of the locals to London via Northampton will stay the same as now.

 

[Philip Elliott]

As for Coventry loosing out.... how many seats are typically used by Coventry-London journeys (the only ones negatively affected by HS2) at 3tph currently compared to the number of seats available if they were to have 1tph shared only with Wolverhampton (and people in a hurry would probably change at Birmingham anyway)?

I would imagine the available seats per hour would not drop that precipitously

It's not about the number of seats but the number of services - a turn up and go service is draw for people to use it. LM currently run 3x 4-car EMUs from Brum to Coventry, they could run 1x 12-car, after all no-one would lose out would they.....?

And if the people in Manchester can cheaply commute to London

With 3x 1100 seats trains and a 2-hour peak window, the maximum number of commuters is 6600 but in reality it would never be anywhere near that - tiny in the grand scheme of things. If we want to create jobs for the people of Manchester, then we should make them available in Manchester.

Electrification can easily proceed in 8 hour posessions almost at convenience of the railway, the sort of massive track replacements and new lines required by the alternative upgrade proposals require enormous heavy engineering works on active railway liens, which takes us back to the insane disruption of the first WCRM era.

And the long blockade of Reading a couple of Christmasses ago? Shugborough Tunnel is shut for 9 days this Christmas and it has nothing to do with the WCRM. A lot of the projects can be done with little disruption - how many all line possessions have been taken to build the Nuneaton North Chord? None. Pointwork, signalling and new bridges.

 

[tbtc]

It's not about the number of seats but the number of services - a turn up and go service is draw for people to use it. LM currently run 3x 4-car EMUs from Brum to Coventry, they could run 1x 12-car, after all no-one would lose out would they.....?

Ah, the Operation Princess idea of running frequent short trains... what could possibly go wrong?

Still no answer to the question about how big a radius you are using for your population definition of eight million people in London (since you are only using small definitions for Manchester, Nottingham etc).

 

[gordonthemoron]

London - within the M25

 

[Donny Dave]

So similar comparisons would be Birmingham - Within the M6/M5/M42 boundry and Manchester - Within the M60.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Ah, the Operation Princess idea of running frequent short trains... what could possibly go wrong?

Still no answer to the question about how big a radius you are using for your population definition of eight million people in London (since you are only using small definitions for Manchester, Nottingham etc).

All the figures I gave are official government figures (but rounded). The people of Wigan do not consider themselves Mancunian nor do Black Country folk consider themselves Brummies and I seriously doubt Barnsley folk identify with Sheffield! The point you're missing is that the total population of the 'major' cities that HS2 would connect is still only a small proportion of the UK population and therefore not 'where the people live' - a lot of people yes but not the majority by a long shot.

The crosscountry franchise has been a resounding success at increasing patronage.

 

[gordonthemoron]

by running sardine cans rather than trains

 

[Bonemaster]

Ah, the Operation Princess idea of running frequent short trains... what could possibly go wrong?

Its what we have now, its a little unfair to compare a flawed (not totally failed) expansion project, with maintaining the status quo

Still no answer to the question about how big a radius you are using for your population definition of eight million people in London (since you are only using small definitions for Manchester, Nottingham etc).

I cant see why any published population figures are relevant using the higher or lower, population figures are published on a local authority basis, for calculation government grants, for example the suburb I live in crosses three local authorities, only one section would be counted the other two are counted as outside, yet all would consider themselves to live in Coventry. This is about station catchment, which is not collected or published anywhere... as has already been stated Coventry has one of the largest long distance flows into London but has been cut out of the map for a much degraded service

However has having two or three fast trains an hour to London over the last decade or two stopped Coventry's decline?

On what basis has Coventry declined; huge parts of the city centre have been recently redeveloped, major companies moving headquarters in and expanding in Coventry, the car industry may have packed up and gone, and the colliery long shut, but these have been replaced by new industries, most notably distribution, and banking. To come out with such comments is quiet frankly the same distortions of the truth that started this thread off.

Taking away service frequency, and connectivity would hamper the progress made in redevelopment and inwards investment that would not have been made without good transport links including three fast trains to London per hour.

True there is a capacity problem on the WCML in the long term, is it best served by a vanity project that will be priced out reach to normal people? which is as more about keeping up with the Jones's than it is about meeting the long term transport needs of this country, which is not population centres hundreds of miles apart it is lots of closely economically integrated conurbations closer together than in most of the developed world?

In fact its so good and environmentally friendly that even the Green party oppose it.

There are so many lies, damn, lies, and misleading statistics being thrown around by two highly emotive sides of this argument, that is becomes so hard to see the wood through the trees.

Rail should be simply about getting people from the homes to where they have there jobs, families or leisure trips, as easily, affordably and hassle free as practically possible, the current HS2 solution ticks none of those boxes and costs a small fortune

 

[tbtc]

All the figures I gave are official government figures (but rounded). The people of Wigan do not consider themselves Mancunian nor do Black Country folk consider themselves Brummies and I seriously doubt Barnsley folk identify with Sheffield!

So, to suit your figures you are including all the M25 as London (Watford, Croydon etc), which is maybe a fifteen/ twenty mile radius from central London, but ignoring all the places that surround Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham which are a lot closer (Wigan, Barnsley, Long Eaton, West Bromwich...)?

I'd suggest that a relevant question would be "would people from the greater urban conurbation/ satellite towns potentially use a HS2 station in Birmingham/ Manchester/ Sheffield/ Nottingham", not "would people in the urban conurbation/ satellite towns abandon all local culture and accept take-over by the nearest city".

Honestly, for the purposes of HS2, who cares whether Long Eaton is in Derbyshire or Wigan is in Greater Manchester (rather than central Manchester) - most people don't get nosebleeds when they cross local authority boundaries. People in Glossop and Buxton seem more interested in working/ shopping/ socialising in Manchester than they are in Derby (despite the towns being in Derbyshire), for example.

On what basis has Coventry declined

I was responding to comments others have made on this thread (and the main HS2 thread) about Coventry

 

[HSTEd]

True there is a capacity problem on the WCML in the long term, is it best served by a vanity project that will be priced out reach to normal people? which is as more about keeping up with the Jones's than it is about meeting the long term transport needs of this country, which is not population centres hundreds of miles apart it is lots of closely economically integrated conurbations closer together than in most of the developed world?

Why will it be priced out of reach of normal people?
Surely it would be integrated into the existing system, and as I have demonstrated, in the case of the captive services which will make up the bulk of seats on the line, the costs per seat are actually lower than on conventional services.

Of course logic has never been a strong suit of the current railway industry, but still, as I understand it TGVs have always been operated as part of the standard fare structure in France.

In fact its so good and environmentally friendly that even the Green party oppose it.

Well the Green Party oppose lots of very environmentally friendly things, like nuclear power, so I don't think them opposing the currently proposed HS2 project is really any evidence of anything. And there is an entry in the party's 2010 manifesto which mentions supporting HSR in principle.

Rail should be simply about getting people from the homes to where they have there jobs, families or leisure trips, as easily, affordably and hassle free as practically possible, the current HS2 solution ticks none of those boxes and costs a small fortune

It allows people commuting between major cities to do so more cheaply wtih a reduced workforce required per seat provided.
It allows them to make journeys that before would not have been practical, such as nights out in London or Manchester for people living in the other city.

There is no reason that off peak HS2 tickets should nto be even cheaper than off peaks now, simply because you can have 1300 seat train sets with only one train crew that can do a round trip to Manchester in under 3hrs hours (including two turnarounds0. Rather than ~400? seat trainsets that take 4hr45 at least.

 

[Philip Elliott]

So, to suit your figures you are including all the M25 as London (Watford, Croydon etc), which is maybe a fifteen/ twenty mile radius from central London, but ignoring all the places that surround Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham which are a lot closer (Wigan, Barnsley, Long Eaton, West Bromwich...)?

I'm not "including" anything, the population of the city of London is 8 million - Watford is not included in that figure because it isn't in London. Birmingham is 1 million. Why would anyone from Wigan travel to Manchester to go to London when they can go from err..Wigan? Where people do travel some distance to get to a city station it is very likely by car causing congestion and pollution.

 

[Bonemaster]

Why will it be priced out of reach of normal people?
Surely it would be integrated into the existing system, and as I have demonstrated, in the case of the captive services which will make up the bulk of seats on the line, the costs per seat are actually lower than on conventional services.

Philip Hammond the minister in charge of the project at the time described it as a rich mans railway, one would assume the minister would know these things about the business plan. Not to mention the fact that the business plan assumes that 30% of passengers would have incomes over £70,000, that sits at the 98th percentile of income distribution, according to the institute of fiscal studies

Well the Green Party oppose lots of very environmentally friendly things, like nuclear power, so I don't think them opposing the currently proposed HS2 project is really any evidence of anything. And there is an entry in the party's 2010 manifesto which mentions supporting HSR in principle.

Comparing this with nuclear power is a bit of comparing apples with oranges. I support high speed rail in principle, this is a flawed project, which neither serves the vast majority of the population, is not environmentally sustainable.

It allows people commuting between major cities to do so more cheaply wtih a reduced workforce required per seat provided.
It allows them to make journeys that before would not have been practical, such as nights out in London or Manchester for people living in the other city.

See Philip Hammonds comments again, as for nights out, have you ever travelled back from a night out on the train, even getting back to Coventry from Birmingham involves an early end to the night, I've seen no proposals for late evening trains that would serve the night out market.

There is no reason that off peak HS2 tickets should nto be even cheaper than off peaks now, simply because you can have 1300 seat train sets with only one train crew that can do a round trip to Manchester in under 3hrs hours (including two turnarounds0. Rather than ~400? seat trainsets that take 4hr45 at least.

There are more costs to running a railway, than providing a driver and train crew, as a practical example running a train faster would use more energy, try driving your car at 100mph and watch you fuel economy drop like a stone.

I was responding to comments others have made on this thread (and the main HS2 thread) about Coventry

You assume I didn't read them and notice your change of tense then, saying something will decline and has declined are very very different and even more so when you do it to prove your point.

 

[tbtc]

Philip Hammond the minister in charge of the project at the time described it as a rich mans railway, one would assume the minister would know these things about the business plan

No - Hammond's quote (when asked about HS2) was that

the railway is already relatively a rich man's toy - the whole railway

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14904610

Disingenuous to claim that he was specifically damning HS2 with his comment - he was damning the whole railway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not "including" anything, the population of the city of London is 8 million - Watford is not included in that figure because it isn't in London. Birmingham is 1 million. Why would anyone from Wigan travel to Manchester to go to London when they can go from err..Wigan? Where people do travel some distance to get to a city station it is very likely by car causing congestion and pollution.

So your Manchester figure doesn't include parts of Greater Manchester that would be in the catchment area for an HS2 service from Manchester to London like Oldham/ Bury?

And your Nottingham figure doesn't include parts of the surrounding urban areas that would be in the catchment area for an HS2 service from Nottingham to London like West Bridgeford/ Hucknall?

Okay.

 

[island]

No, it didn't. With a small number of notable exceptions - John Lewis and Marks & Spencer, for example - retailers maintained their retail prices and pocketed the additional profit themselves.

And then put the prices up the next two years when the rate went up again!

 

[HSTEd]

There are more costs to running a railway, than providing a driver and train crew, as a practical example running a train faster would use more energy, try driving your car at 100mph and watch you fuel economy drop like a stone.

Now tis really is apples with oranges.
Energy costs for 320kph trains are extremely minor and almost entirely derived from air resistance, which is largely independent of train length, and would be lower for 1 uniform 400m trainset than for 2 200m trainsets.

Electricity is very cheap, it translates to roughly 26p/litre equivalent. (4kWh/litre).

The primary costs on high speed railway are capital costs for the track and rolling stock, and the cost of staffing a railway.

Running lots more trains on the same infrastructure reduces the costs significantly, especially as the entire HSR signalling system would be controlled from a single control room that would also manage service provision.

NOTE: 0.037kWh per seat km for TGV Duplex according to an ATOC study for Greengauge 21.

Which means 280km between London and Manchester consumes roughly 10kWh of energy per seat.
At a 33% capacity factor that translates to roughly 30kWh, or approximately £1.95 of electricity per passenger for a single train-set and it would be lower for a pair of train-sets coupled or for a single 400m train-set (both for reduced air resistance and because a V-150 style train would have two extra trailers for a total of 18).

EDIT #2:

From the same study the energy consumption of a Class 390 pendolino comes to roughly 0.033kWh per seat km for reference.

This is due to the heavy tilt gear and the fact it is only a single decked train as far as I know.
So really you save 1.12kWh per seat or roughly 3.36kWh per passenger, or roughly 22 pence off a ticket by using Pendolinos compared to 200m Duplex sets (let alone 400m Duplex sets).