HS2 under review

[melmerby]

Just now, Andrea506 said:

Well I did put "the cat among the pidgeons" didn't I. I still say it isn't needed, not wanted and a colossal waste of money! Has it occured to anyone that with the advance of technology in 20 years time face to face business meetings will be a thing of the past? We already have Skype. Office accommodation in London is hideously expensive, far more people will work from home. I call it "Camerons Folly". If a high speed railway is so necessary put it in the middle of the M1 and remove the outside lane, after all we won't want cars when we can use a fancy train! 

 

Rubbish.

If you believe that you will believe anything.

We had the same prediction 20 years ago. The technology is already avaiable* (and has been for some time) and it ain't happened.

* I went to a business about 15 years ago where they had high quality video conferencing with the Ford Motor Company Dearborn.

 

[Andrea506]

3 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Rubbish.

If you believe that you will believe anything.

We had the same prediction 20 years ago. The technology is already avaiable* (and has been for some time) and it ain't happened.

* I went to a business about 15 years ago where they had high quality video conferencing with the Ford Motor Company Dearborn.

 

You call my views "rubbish", well I call you rude! I still believe with all my heart that HS2 is a total waste of money, typical white elephant!

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Thing is, when I see a London bound Pendolino stop at Wigan North Western there's very few "Business types" in suits with brief cases etc boarding amongst the (sometimes) many that do. Certainly no (or a miniscule number) of commuters.

 

I wonder what the mix of pleasure / business customers is ? - It will be different for Manchester, and (perhaps) Liverpool though. Glasgow businessmen will fly.

 

Brit15

There is a high proportion of business types going from Birmingham /International and Coventry to London but only a few trains first thing and similar on the way back. At other times the mix of passengers definitely looks as if it's mainly for leisure.

Only my observation mind you. No doubt Virgin would have a better knowledge of the ratios.

 

[royaloak]

5 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Rubbish.

If you believe that you will believe anything.

We had the same prediction 20 years ago. The technology is already avaiable* (and has been for some time) and it ain't happened.

* I went to a business about 15 years ago where they had high quality video conferencing with the Ford Motor Company Dearborn.

 

Anyone remember the paperless office they promised us back in the 1970s because computers would render paper redundant?

That worked out well didnt it.

 

Andrea, how do you propose to cure the capacity issues at the bottom of the West Coast Mainline if we dont build HS2?

Oh 'upgrading' the existing route has already been done and didnt work out too well!

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, Andrea506 said:

You call my views "rubbish", well I call you rude! I still believe with all my heart that HS2 is a total waste of money, typical white elephant!

But with no evidence to back up your views, just a heartfelt feeling. (Oh and a flippant remark about putting it down the M1), hence my curt response.

Come up with some genuine arguments/suggestions and you will be taken seriously, so far you come across as one of the "nays" that will argue the whole thing around in a circle, without coming forward with any serious alternatives.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

Just a thought (and often mentioned) Why does HS2 have to be a 250 mph railway if freeing up capacity on existing lines is such a high priority ?

 

 

It doesn't - and professionals in the field have long questioned this, as once over 200mph the energy consumption / costs rapidly rise due to aerodynamic issues.

 

If only folk on here and elsewhere would focus on just that aspect!

 

I have to say that the rest of Europe gets by quite happily running at 186mph (300Kph) and this should be the design speed for HS2 - though it could be prudent to allow for 200mph (320Kph) where it poses no significant extra costs.

 

As I pointed out before HS1 was found to be suitable for 186mph through Kent even though the initial designed was done around 140mph -  at such high speeds its desirable to keep curves as gentle as possible anyway so its not as though a reduction in the top speed of HS2 is going to make that much difference.

 

The principle advantage of groping for a slightly lower speed is a reduction in track and OLE costs plus a slight saving on the digging of tunnels whose diameter can be a tiny bit smaller.

Edited August 23, 2019 by phil-b259

[PhilH]

How noisy are these things going to be if they do get up to 250mph...are they putting any research into that?

[phil-b259]

45 minutes ago, Andrea506 said:

Well I did put "the cat among the pidgeons" didn't I. I still say it isn't needed, not wanted and a colossal waste of money! Has it occured to anyone that with the advance of technology in 20 years time face to face business meetings will be a thing of the past? We already have Skype. Office accommodation in London is hideously expensive, far more people will work from home. I call it "Camerons Folly". If a high speed railway is so necessary put it in the middle of the M1 and remove the outside lane, after all we won't want cars when we can use a fancy train! 

 

 

Back in he 1980s it was predicted that video video conferencing would spell the end of the need to travel for businesses - in the late 1990s it was the power of the internet that would eliminate this need. In fact i bet if you went back to just after the telephone was invented you would have found plenty of folk saying it would eliminate the need for meetings / letters through the post!

 

At one it was also predicted that the rise of the car and construction of the urban motorway system would do away for the need for trains (hence BR was instructed to preside over a 'managed decline' in our rail network. Although initially successful that decline eventually stopped and numbers have rise relentlessly for two decades now.

 

HS2 is not a 'fancy train any more than the French TGV, the Spanish AVE or German ICE ones are. The only 'vanity element about HS2 is the decision to go for such a high speed - drop that back to European norms (186mph) and the 'vanity element goes away. Simples!

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, PhilH said:

How noisy are these things going to be if they do get up to 250mph...are they putting any research into that?

 

Noise has been one of the things HS2 have considered in detail and its in the documentation put before parliament when the bill was being drawn up. Extensive noise barriers (similar to those appearing alongside 'Smart' motorways and noise bunds / cuttings are all use to keep it at acceptable levels (these levels are defined by the Environment Agency etc - not just somebody from HS2 picking a figure by the way).

 

Thing is, if  you go and stand by HS1 then  you get more noise from the adjacent motorways than the railway itself - one of the key objections from Kent residents about HS1 was noise, but careful attention to this during construction plus scientific research which proves a consistent drone (like from a motorway) is actually more annoying than occasional bursts of noise as a train passes has meant that most residents along the route of HS1 find it doesn't bother them at all!

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Andrea506 said:

You call my views "rubbish", well I call you rude! I still believe with all my heart that HS2 is a total waste of money, typical white elephant!

 

Remember what I said earlier - HS2 is not a religion!

 

Any physical project must be judged on FACTS - not what you imagine to be true. The lack of capacity on the WCML has been proven many times over and HS2 has been judged as the optimum way of fixing it.

 

If you 'believe HS2 is a waste of money then it is your duty to tell us how you intend to solve the problem. There are those that believe HS2 is too fast - which is absolutely fine, because unlike you the people advocating this can point to scientific research which backs up their stance.

 

Your proposed solution could include measure to suppress the demand for travel - but things like video conferencing, e-mail, smartphones, computers and virtual reality have made sod all difference so far and cannot be relied upon to do so in the future.

 

Much like 'believing the fires ravaging the Amazon at the moment will somehow go away of their own accord, or 'believing  the extreme weather the UK has been suffering from for a number of years will simply disappear because you want it too, 'Believing that the problem of WCML capacity will go away if you ignore it is total rubbish.

Edited August 23, 2019 by phil-b259

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

Just a thought (and often mentioned) Why does HS2 have to be a 250 mph railway if freeing up capacity on existing lines is such a high priority ?

 

Brit15

It's not.

AFAIK that was the initial aim of the project but I don't think that has been officially promoted for some time.

200mph seems to be nearer the mark.

I assume someone decided 250mph would be a great leap forward compared to HS1, which is now quite old.

BTW the max speed on Japanese Shinkansen is 200mph and the Chinese equivalent is 217mph, German ICE is 205mph, TGV (est) is 200mph, so 186mph is old hat.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

Thing is, when I see a London bound Pendolino stop at Wigan North Western there's very few "Business types" in suits with brief cases etc boarding amongst the (sometimes) many that do. Certainly no (or a miniscule number) of commuters.

 

I wonder what the mix of pleasure / business customers is ? - It will be different for Manchester, and (perhaps) Liverpool though. Glasgow businessmen will fly.

 

Brit15

 

I would imagine that there are a reasonable number of business types from the likes of Preston who use the Pendalios that stop at Wigan. Lancaster and Carlisle are other places which might generate some business users. On London to Scotland trains, the its pretty much a certainty that the only folk making the end to end journey will be leisure travellers or those for whom time is not important.

 

Although small I would also expect there are a smattering of business users in the north West who may take the train to Scotland rather than fly there from Manchester.

[phil-b259]

19 minutes ago, melmerby said:

It's not.

AFAIK that was the initial aim of the project but I don't think that has been officially promoted for some time.

200mph seems to be nearer the mark.

I assume someone decided 250mph would be a great leap forward compared to HS1, which is now quite old.

BTW the max speed on Japanese Shinkansen is 200mph and the Chinese equivalent is 217mph, German ICE is 205mph, TGV (est) is 200mph, so 186mph is old hat.

 

IIRC the French do NOT routinely run at 205mph as it is very costly in energy terms - the laws physics do not change depending on which country you are in and the French have enough high speed experience to know what they are talking about!

 

TGV services on the LGV est are I believe actually scheduled to travel at 186mph - the extra 20mph only being used to make up time after delays have occurred.

 

I have said in a previous post that 200mph would be advantageous where it does not add significantly to the cost (e.g the line is straight enough with no tunnels) but only use it as the French do, a means to make up time rather than the regular cruising speed.

[PhilH]

If 'leisure travellers and those for whom time is not important' are taken out of the equation will there be enough business travellers, who seem to be the target customers for HS2, to warrant spending 56 or whatever billion quid on? 

When I, as an occasional and reluctant rail user, look for a ticket increasingly cost is a major factor. So in my book, and I suspect quite a few others, cheapest is best whether or not I get a seat or am sat on the roof. I can't put it on expenses or let the taxman pay for it.

I would surmise ( which there is an awful lot of on this thread) that HS2 fares aren't going to be cheap, so I'm confused as to whether the cost of this scheme really benefit the general public or just a certain section of it?

Edited August 23, 2019 by PhilH

[brack]

14 minutes ago, PhilH said:

If 'leisure travellers and those for whom time is not important' are taken out of the equation will there be enough business travellers, who seem to be the target customers for HS2, to warrant spending 56 or whatever billion quid on? 

It might have been mentioned once or twice earlier in the thread, but it isn't really about the travellers on HS2 so much as freeing up capacity. The 56 billion is as much to unclog the bottom end of the wcml for the benefit of all the commuters, local train users, cheap off peak ticket buyers, freight traffic etc as it is to benefit the people paying the surcharges for travelling on HS2.

 

Depending on how much more expensive it is, it'll be used. Perhaps not as your every day commute, but as a holiday trip or reasonably special occasion (I have used the high speed trains in france and italy on holiday, it's a one off journey and the time saved and better accommodation is worth it).

 

Having said that, ticket prices are too high in this country and if we want ordinary people to switch from their cars (which from a social, infrastructure, energy use and environmental point of view we should do) we need to make rail travel cheaper than doing the journey in a car. If I drive to my wife's parents it costs me £30-40 to take the whole family and I have a car to get around in when we get there. Last time we took the train it was quicker, much nicer, but over £200 and that was when the kids were younger so didnt need tickets, two together railcard and booked months in advance. Plus we had no car for the week we were there.

[phil-b259]

42 minutes ago, PhilH said:

If 'leisure travellers and those for whom time is not important' are taken out of the equation will there be enough business travellers, who seem to be the target customers for HS2, to warrant spending 56 or whatever billion quid ?

 

Yes - because the main beneficiary of HS2 is not passengers north of Wigan - but rather passengers from the likes of Manchester and Liverpool.

 

HS2 allows an increase in service provision to these places - which generate considerable quantiles of both business and leisure travel to London - and the current trains are usually overcrowded as a result!

 

Similarly, while Birmingham is in itself not the reason for building HS2, the fact that HS2 exists will allow additional services to be provided to that city - again it already generates large numbers of travellers and could generate even more if there were paths available in which to run trains!

 

HS2 as a project has multiple benefits that are sped across numerous different user groups - and it is completely inappropriate to try and make a decision solely on any one aspect of it.

 

As I see it HS2 allows

 

Additional trains to Birmingham

Additional trains to Liverpool

Additional trains to Manchester

A slight reduction in journey times for all of the above

A slight reduction in journey times for those north of Wigan

Longer / double deck trains to Birmingham (and Manchester if HS2 is completed as intended)

Additional services on the current WCML in place of those transferred to HS2

Better connectivity between WCML stations as more calls can be made at the likes of Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, etc

Additional freight paths on the current WCML

 

ALL of these benefits come into play (to varying degrees) with completion of the first phase (Eston to Birmingham / Litchfield) Subsequent phases allow the benefits of phase 1 to be expanded. phase 3 through the East Midlands in turn unlocks even more...

 

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

25 minutes ago, brack said:

Having said that, ticket prices are too high in this country and if we want ordinary people to switch from their cars (which from a social, infrastructure, energy use and environmental point of view we should do) we need to make rail travel cheaper than doing the journey in a car. If I drive to my wife's parents it costs me £30-40 to take the whole family and I have a car to get around in when we get there. Last time we took the train it was quicker, much nicer, but over £200 and that was when the kids were younger so didnt need tickets, two together railcard and booked months in advance. Plus we had no car for the week we were there.

 

Actually in spite of what the RMT and Labour party will tell you, average train ticket prices in the UK are no more expensive than the rest of Europe!

 

The big difference is that in the UK, tickets booked in advance are really cheep - but ones booked on the day are very expensive!

 

In France for example, most fares are the same regardless of whether you book on the day or a 6 weeks before you travel.

 

For example the following trips cover about 250Km and the UK is only just beaten into second place by Italy

 

London to Sheffield - £22

Paris to Dijon - £32.43

Rome to Florence - £20.06

Nuremberg to Kassel - £27.71

 

However if you wait to buy on the day the French get the best fare - although you should note that the German price is not far off ours:-

 

London to Sheffield - £79

Paris to Dijon - £32.43

Rome to Florence - £46.33

Nuremberg to Kassel - £73.21

 

As regards things like season tickets and local fares, these do tend to cost more in the UK simply because the UK Government doesn't provide anything like as much subsidy as other EU nations do. Again this has sod all to do with privatisation (RMT supporters take note!) and everything to do the way our politicians want our railways to be funded by users rather than the taxpayer.

 

See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49346642

Edited August 23, 2019 by phil-b259

[pete_mcfarlane]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Thing is, when I see a London bound Pendolino stop at Wigan North Western there's very few "Business types" in suits with brief cases etc boarding amongst the (sometimes) many that do.

But how many business travellers dress like that? You might find that some of the people in jeans and carrying backpacks are also business travellers. 

[brack]

What time of day are those tickets and how many of them are available at that price?

My experience is that even booking several months in advance there are precious few cheap tickets around unless you wish to arrive at half past midnight. Whereas in italy or france the cheaper prices were available at normal times of day, even if booked the day before.

Besides which pricing out casual travellers, or those who are unable to schedule everything months in advance is rather stupid, it reinforces the idea that taking the train is a major event like planning a holiday or booking flights, rather than an everyday thing. Thus making people take the car instead unless it's something they can plan for 3 months in advance.

 

Perhaps if we had more capacity on our trains or lines the prices might become more reasonable? Any ideas out there for how we could increase capacity?

(And back to the topic...)

[royaloak]

4 minutes ago, brack said:

Perhaps if we had more capacity on our trains or lines the prices might become more reasonable? Any ideas out there for how we could increase capacity?

(And back to the topic...)

Can you point me to anywhere in Europe where the frequency of services is similar to ours between similar sized Cities, similar distants apart?

Edited August 23, 2019 by royaloak

[phil-b259]

9 minutes ago, brack said:

What time of day are those tickets and how many of them are available at that price?

My experience is that even booking several months in advance there are precious few cheap tickets around unless you wish to arrive at half past midnight. Whereas in italy or france the cheaper prices were available at normal times of day, even if booked the day before.

Besides which pricing out casual travellers, or those who are unable to schedule everything months in advance is rather stupid, it reinforces the idea that taking the train is a major event like planning a holiday or booking flights, rather than an everyday thing. Thus making people take the car instead unless it's something they can plan for 3 months in advance.

 

Perhaps if we had more capacity on our trains or lines the prices might become more reasonable? Any ideas out there for how we could increase capacity?

(And back to the topic...)

 

The interesting thing to note is the Germans and Italians have copied our airline style pricing. Not all EU operators are like the French....

Edited August 23, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, royaloak said:

Can you point me to anywhere in Europe where the frequency of services is similar to ours between similar sized Cities, similar distants apart?

 

While the French may be hopeless away from their TGV network in frequency terms, the Germans are supposed to be pretty reasonable and gone with a BR style frequent service operation. They also seem to have adopted the BR / airline pricing model as well. I suspect there may be a link between the two.....

[brack]

15 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Can you point me to anywhere in Europe where the frequency of services is similar to ours between similar sized Cities, similar distants apart?

Switzerland. But the cities are often smaller.

 

My comments weren't aimed at comparing ourselves to other countries, but pointing out the obvious logic that if we wish for people to make a modal shift from private car to trains for long distance travel then the current pricing model doesn't work. The train is both less convenient and more expensive, but might save a little journey time and is less stressful.

Once you have more than one person in the car there is no competition. Achieving such a modal shift, which we all see as desirable on environmental, congestion, air pollution and energy efficiency grounds will require some financial incentives. Likely in terms of subsidising public transport (and similar action to make car use less attractive).

Edited August 23, 2019 by brack

[Fenman]

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

...

The big difference is that in the UK, tickets booked in advance are really cheep - but ones booked on the day are very expensive!

...

 

That’s fantastic news! Please do tell me where to look to get these cheap advance tickets on my local Great Northern services from West Norfolk to King’s Cross. Because I can tell you there aren’t any, and there never have been. All tickets are priced at the same “walk up” fare, making these, on average, some of the most expensive tickets in Europe. 

 

I do wish people would stop implying that there are these super-cheap tickets available throughout Britain. It depends on which TOC and which route you need. 

 

I work for a relatively tiny organisation that has people in around 70 countries (for most of them English is their second language). Most of our work is done using Skype-type services, but our experience is that, for most activities, you still need to bring the group physically together at least once a year.

 

We spend a fortune on airfares so we really would replace them if we could. But people do seem to need to spend some time together, getting to know each other, if the later Skype meetings are to be as effective as possible. 

 

Paul

[Siberian Snooper]

When I was travelling for work it was to fix things and there's as yet no video link that will do that and I didn't wear a suit, but did travel first class, mostly to the North-east, but occasionally Scotland and travel via London as it's usually quicker and cheaper than XC. When I now do it for leisure I still go the same way, so HS2 will even improve train travel from the far flung SW.