Will HS2 require premium fares?

[JonathanH]

By the time this thing is built, and the every increasing cost of living, and rail fares always going up - will anybody actually be able to afford to travel on it?

By 2030, if rail fares increase annually at RPI+1%, it is currently expected that they will be around 50% higher than they are now. Based on current RPI projections, the increase in 2023 should be over 10%, then 7% in 2024 and a little over 5% each year for the rest of the decade.

You may have a reasonable point as I would not expect many people to have pay increases as high as this. Companies have got very comfortable with there being no inflationary element of pay increases.

Nevertheless, it will come down to what people want to afford to pay for travel relative to the other costs in their lives. There will always be some desire to travel and it will come down to a balance of all of the costs of living.

 

[London Trains]

At busy times, there will be more demand than capacity. From a revenue perspective, does it not makes sense for that capacity to be prioritised towards the people who are prepared to pay more?

London to Birmingham will be about 40 minutes.

Would you want there to be advance tickets and compulsory reservations for journeys such as London to Epping, Chesham, Dorking, Reigate, Uxbridge, High Barnet, Maidenhead, Bracknell or Caterham?

 

[Mikw]

By 2030, if rail fares increase annually at RPI+1%, it is currently expected that they will be around 50% higher than they are now. Based on current RPI projections, the increase in 2023 should be over 10%, then 7% in 2024 and a little over 5% each year for the rest of the decade.

You may have a reasonable point as I would not expect many people to have pay increases as high as this. Companies have got very comfortable with there being no inflationary element of pay increases.

Nevertheless, it will come down to what people want to afford to pay for travel relative to the other costs in their lives. There will always be some desire to travel and it will come down to a balance of all of the costs of living.

Yes. And i should have added to my post. HS2 is bound to be delayed, so i expect that would mean even higher prices, given that the non premium fares on standard lines will be higher than it would be if it had opened on time.

 

[JonathanH]

Would you want there to be advance tickets and compulsory reservations for journeys such as London to Epping, Chesham, Dorking, Reigate, Uxbridge, High Barnet, Maidenhead, Bracknell or Caterham?

Passengers would travel on PAYG from all of those locations to London and then use an advance fare from London to Birmingham. Many already do this.

I am not sure why you think low speed journeys to those locations would be on advance fares. It is about distance, not journey times. If HS2 opens with compulsory reservations, I don't think anyone would be surprised.

 

[Jozhua]

A lot of IC services will stop running on the existing lines once HS2 comes into place, or more likely, operate more slowly with more stops. This will provide better coverage of smaller stations and clash less with local services.

Once HS2 opens, the strategy will be to fill every single seat for the maximum price each passenger is willing to pay. For this, a mixture of advanced, 1st, peak, standard, etc, ticket options will be used - like on the existing network.

As HS2 will provide a ton extra capacity, expect quite a lot of cheap off peak tickets in the first few years!

The existing network is charging a premium due to lack of capacity - XC and WCML routes being a good example of this. Of course, having some more capacity on the existing network also allows for some more competition from operators such as London Midland and Lumo.

The thing is - HS2 is a tool to provide extra capacity primarily, and faster journeys secondarily. How we choose to use that tool will massively change the outcome. Indeed, they could try to make it a premium service alongside the existing offering, or cut the existing IC services and replace entirely with HS2 with similar fares. I happen to think the latter makes much more sense and fits in with the logic behind the project.

Isn't part of the reason WCML fares are so high (even compared to other IC routes), that there is more demand than capacity? If that's the case the extra capacity would create a case for reducing (some of) the fares

Yes

Ultimately every passenger doing a HS2 possible journey on the classic line is costing the railway, and thus the state, extra money.

It will be cheaper operationally to move someone on HS2, versus the classic network for the same distance too.

Are there any high speed lines anywhere in the world that fit that description? Whether it's the best use of limited resources is a worthy question, but there is no chance it will be empty

Very much true, HS2 will be very well utilised.

And yet, Concorde made a profit catering exclusively to business traffic. If you're charging more per ticket you don't need as many people to be willing/able to pay.

HS2 is not Concorde. Concorde's issue was that it's operating costs were high and capacity low.

HS2 will have comparable operating costs to trains on the WCML and significantly more capacity.

 

[edwin_m]

If HS2 does need to control the number of passengers per service for safety reasons could you not introduce 21st Century Blackpool North crowd control measures where the barriers (holy and venerated doors) only let a train load of passengers onto the departure platform on a first come first served basis? Do you need reservations for a 3tph 40min shuttle to Brum.

If 500 people are let onto a platform at Euston for a train with 500 seats, it will take a long time for everyone to find a vacant seat. Think of what happened when the no-frills airlines decided not to allocate seating, and multiply it by several for a train that seats more than twice as many but they are spread through a number of coaches so people can't see where the empty seats might be. Then consider the extra problems if the train is formed of two units with no access between them, and has twice as many passengers to deal with.

This is probably worse at intermediate stations, where there are fewer passengers to board but it has to be done during a very limited dwell time. I think it only has a hope of working if each passenger is allocated a specific seat, although this could be done up to a few minutes before departure by passengers with smartphones. So, assuming it's correct that numbers on a train will be controlled, I'd expect everyone to receive a seat allocation when they book, with flexible ticket holders able to change this by website or app.

 

[paul1609]

I’m surprised this question comes up so often. It’s always seemed to me that whatever the DFT said, “high fares” are an article of faith for objectors. Many mainstream news articles were aimed at objectors, and still are, so that’s what they’re going to write.

But comparison with HS1 seems futile, because people do clearly accept the small premium. IIRC the HS1 domestics were also almost guaranteed to be a white elephant by objectors.

What isn't taken in to account was that fares for most of Kent and parts of East Sussex were hiked by 5% + rpi for non HS1 fares for several years to pay for the benefits of HS1 even though in many cases the post HS1 service was actually slower.

 

[Jozhua]

What isn't taken in to account was that fares for most of Kent and parts of East Sussex were hiked by 5% + rpi for non HS1 fares for several years to pay for the benefits of HS1 even though in many cases the post HS1 service was actually slower.

Really rather counter-intuitive!

HS1 should be paid for by the larger number of customers who can now be served due to the increase in customers at those intermediate stations (better served by more slower, stopping trains)

Certainly, from hearing what happened with HS1 on here, I can see why there is concern around HS2 being a "rich people's" service.

But the fact it is financed publically, not privately, should result in a different approach. Government will want their investment to create as much economic growth as possible and capture revenue through the tax on that growth, versus trying to recoup the capital costs as such.