Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link

[HSTEd]

It has been a while since I looked at HS2 Ltd's figures but if I remember correctly, they intend to achieve £31 billion of additional rail revenue over 60 years.

Would walkup fares in the region of £50 achieve this objective?

Well without the existing rail revenue figure I can't make an estimate.....

But £31bn is only ~£500m.

£500m is roughly £1.4m/day.
Which means over 16 hours of operation at 18 trains per hour, you must acquire revenue of ~£3742 per train in addition to classic operations income.
Considering you could incorporate the entire classic transport demand onto HS2 while only filling a third of the seats, that means that you would only nee to generate ~£5600 per train to reach this objective.

If the trains have an average of a 1000 seats (400m classic formations having 700 and 400m Duplex sets potentially have 1300+) then you have to have an average fare of £5.60.

So yeah, you can manage that.

 

[Chris125]

I think it's much more likely that when HS2 opens it will have broadly identical fares to those charged for the conventional fast services it supersedes, at least during the peaks.

In theory those services would in turn become cheaper, reflecting the changes in frequency and stopping pattern while aiming to attract more medium-distance and commuter traffic. By providing faster services on a much more regular basis to places like Milton Keynes, this would help relieve slow line services.

Chris

 

[RichmondCommu]

Also HS1 is still operating below capacity

Yes and why do you think that is? There isn't enough demand for rail travel between the UK and the rest of Europe and all too often it's cheaper to fly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the trains have an average of a 1000 seats (400m classic formations having 700 and 400m Duplex sets potentially have 1300+) then you have to have an average fare of £5.60.

So yeah, you can manage that.

The thing is you need to have a big enough market to fill those seats. And even between Birmingham and London I'm yet to be convinced that the market is of suficient size.

 

[HSTEd]

The thing is you need to have a big enough market to fill those seats. And even between Birmingham and London I'm yet to be convinced that the market is of suficient size.

Drop the fares low enough and the market will appear.
Especially over a multi decade timeframe.

The fares will be close to marginal rates for a long time because we will have no scarcity pricing.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Drop the fares low enough and the market will appear.
Especially over a multi decade timeframe.

The fares will be close to marginal rates for a long time because we will have no scarcity pricing.

Yes but people don't travel for the sake of it, not matter how cheap the tickets might be. There has to be reason for people to travel anywhere.

 

[transmanche]

There isn't enough demand for rail travel between the UK and the rest of Europe and all too often it's cheaper to fly.

Yet Eurostar commands the vast majority of the London-Brussels/Paris market. It's the lack of through services which suppresses demand - quite simply, having to change trains in London and again in Lille/Brussels/Paris puts people off.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yet Eurostar commands the vast majority of the London-Brussels/Paris market. It's the lack of through services which suppresses demand - quite simply, having to change trains in London and again in Lille/Brussels/Paris puts people off.

Agreed, however the SNCF and DB appear to be in no hurry to introduce those through services and they seem to know a thing or two about rail travel.

 

[Jordeh]

Agreed, however the SNCF and DB appear to be in no hurry to introduce those through services and they seem to know a thing or two about rail travel.

Since HS1 has opened they've been fairly proactive with it, it's external factors such as the Tunnel restrictions, delays with Siemens manufacturing new trains and finding a viable solution to the Schengen problem.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes but people don't travel for the sake of it, not matter how cheap the tickets might be. There has to be reason for people to travel anywhere.

People commuting from Birmingham to London, Manchester and Leeds
People commuting from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds
People commuting from Manchester to Birmingham and London
People commuting from Leeds to Birmingham and London.

Those flows will grow eventually to dominate the service, just as the M25 is now used for vast flows of circum-london commuters.

We end up with giant park and rides at Birmingham International, Meadowhalla nd Manchester Airport. The values of land at Birmingham especially should escalate due to its very very good connections to the capital.

This is what has happened due to every significant transport improvement that improves journey times and capacity on routes into London. "London"'s boundary moves a long way north essentially. (Defining 'London' by its LUZ, which already impinges on the south coast in the HS1 corridor).

 

[The Ham]

Yes but people don't travel for the sake of it, not matter how cheap the tickets might be. There has to be reason for people to travel anywhere.

However, if train ticket prices were of a coast that it was seen as good value a lot more people would travel by train. Also there is already a lot of passengers using trains, so if prices fell then it is likely that there would be people to use it (who are currently priced off the railways).

Add to that, baring some massive change (downwards) of car ownership, it is likely that the use of trains will continue to grow (even if just to cater for population growth). Which means that passenger numbers do not need to be at the levels suggested at day 1 as long as they reach that point in the first few decades and are exceeded by enough in the rest of the time to make up for the shortfall at the begining.

It should also be remembered that passenger numbers are well head of the passenger growth model used to justify HS2.

 

[cle]

I think the single line is sufficient for the level of traffic.

Trains from Birmingham to Paris would be 3 per day maximum.

Ashford to OOC and Birmingham, or indeed onto GWML to Heathrow or the West, 1tph each way? And freight of course, but running at off hours.

That should be fine for a single line. The trains are all very long though, and running at slow speeds would take up more capacity.

My main issue is the impact is has on the NLL/Overground, and future growth there and at Camden Road itself.

 

[transmanche]

Yet Eurostar commands the vast majority of the London-Brussels/Paris market. It's the lack of through services which suppresses demand - quite simply, having to change trains in London and again in Lille/Brussels/Paris puts people off.

Agreed, however the SNCF and DB appear to be in no hurry to introduce those through services and they seem to know a thing or two about rail travel.

And the reasons for that have been adequately discussed in another thread: i.e. the requirement for security and passport checks. Meaning, for example, all passengers on the new Eurostar service from Lyon having to alight at Lille for the checks - adding an hour to the inbound journey.

However, if the UK Government allowed on-board passport checks...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the single line is sufficient for the level of traffic.

Trains from Birmingham to Paris would be 3 per day maximum.

Ashford to OOC and Birmingham, or indeed onto GWML to Heathrow or the West, 1tph each way?

People seem to be thinking about international trains, or the fact that there doesn't appear to be a market for trains from Ashford to Birmingham.

One thing that no-one seems to be considering is the market for services from Stratford to the midlands and the north. Stratford is close to Docklands (and that's more than just Canary Wharf!), so there will be quite a lot of business travel to/from the area. For leisure travellers, it has excellent travel connections - and many people would prefer a connection at Stratford, rather than have to go all the way into central London.

Plus having some HS2 services go onto HS1 would reduce the HS2 capacity requirements at Euston itself.

And finally, if there is ever going to be a 'Boris Island' airport - demand for through HS2-HS1 services will skyrocket.

 

[edwin_m]

Crossrail from Old Oak will be just as fast to most of Docklands as getting to Stratford then having to change to DLR and possibly again to the Jubilee Line.

 

[transmanche]

Crossrail from Old Oak will be just as fast to most of Docklands as getting to Stratford then having to change to DLR and possibly again to the Jubilee Line.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that changing at Old Oak Common for a Crossrail service to Stratford will be as quick as an HS2-HS1 service to Stratford?

Or that changing onto a Crossrail service to go to Old Oak Common to get an HS2 service will be more convenient for passengers than going to Stratford International?

Think of it like the LGV Interconnexion Est; where, for example, you can get a TGV from Lille to Paris Gare du Nord or direct to CDG airport.

 

[Pugwash]

I think it's much more likely that when HS2 opens it will have broadly identical fares to those charged for the conventional fast services it supersedes, at least during the peaks.

In theory those services would in turn become cheaper, reflecting the changes in frequency and stopping pattern while aiming to attract more medium-distance and commuter traffic. By providing faster services on a much more regular basis to places like Milton Keynes, this would help relieve slow line services.

Chris

The example of HS1 shows that if a premium can be charged it will be.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Add to that, baring some massive change (downwards) of car ownership, it is likely that the use of trains will continue to grow (even if just to cater for population growth). .

How do you think people will get to the HS stations? Each will have thousands of car park spaces.....

 

[tbtc]

The example of HS1 shows that if a premium can be charged it will be.

HS1 trains aren't significantly longer than some other trains between London and Kent.

HS2 trains are going to be four hundred metres long, so have plenty more spare capacity on board.

I'd expect there to be premium fares for "open" HS2 tickets (given the time savings it'll be a lot more attractive to some business users), but for "advance" HS2 tickets to be lower than the current lines offer (e.g. not a lot of spare seats on a five coach 222, so not huge scope for EMT to offer hundreds of bargainous tickets from Sheffield/ East Midlands to London).

 

[cle]

I'm not sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that changing at Old Oak Common for a Crossrail service to Stratford will be as quick as an HS2-HS1 service to Stratford?

Or that changing onto a Crossrail service to go to Old Oak Common to get an HS2 service will be more convenient for passengers than going to Stratford International?

Think of it like the LGV Interconnexion Est; where, for example, you can get a TGV from Lille to Paris Gare du Nord or direct to CDG airport.

I think the latter, but in reverse.

People coming from Manchester to Canary Wharf will be better off changing at OOC for Crossrail, than staying on to Stratford International. Where all they have is the wrong DLR branch. Frequency would be much lower too.

Journey time wouldn't be much different, given the inevitable crawl around Camden.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that changing at Old Oak Common for a Crossrail service to Stratford will be as quick as an HS2-HS1 service to Stratford?

No. I was thinking of people going to Canary Wharf, Excel or nearby which will have direct Crossrail services from OOC. Travelling to Excel via Stratford would involve a slow DLR journey from Stratford International, and going to Canary Wharf requires DLR to Stratford Regional then a change to the Jubilee (or a slower all-DLR journey).

 

[The Ham]

The example of HS1 shows that if a premium can be charged it will be.

Users of HS1 have the choice of Southeastern on HS1 or Southeastern not on HS1.

Users of HS2 from Birmingham will have (assuming HS2 services replace the current virgin services) the choice of HS2, Chiltern and LM.

As there will be a choice of different operators then it is unlikely that a premium will be able to be charged as if the price goes up too much people will just not use HS2 and switch to the other operators.

 

[Chris125]

The example of HS1 shows that if a premium can be charged it will be.

Passengers using Virgin to Birmingham or Manchester for example already pay a premium for using the faster service, and I expect HS2 will retain that, but with the step change in capacity increasing it further is unlikely to make sense given the alternatives on offer.

Chris

 

[joeykins82]

It's not so much that they pay a premium (although the increase in the cost of unregulated fares on the WCML is certainly eye watering) but that the TOCs in competition offer cheaper fares on the slower services. Well, that's true in the case of Birmingham anyway, but there is no rail alternative to VT for a trip from London to Manchester.

 

[Geezertronic]

... but there is no rail alternative to VT for a trip from London to Manchester.

Unless you accept a change of train at Crewe and approx 3 1/2 hour journey time (for example).

 

[northwichcat]

Unless you accept a change of train at Crewe and approx 3 1/2 hour journey time (for example).

Or via Sheffield using the Route:Chesterfield fare which is faster than LM and doesn't involve a 3 hr 15 Desiro journey.

 

[MarkyT]

I think the single line is sufficient for the level of traffic.

Trains from Birmingham to Paris would be 3 per day maximum.

Ashford to OOC and Birmingham, or indeed onto GWML to Heathrow or the West, 1tph each way? And freight of course, but running at off hours.

That should be fine for a single line. The trains are all very long though, and running at slow speeds would take up more capacity.

Actually quite a squeeze on a single track all the way from Camden to Old Oak. In a busy area a link configured in this way can quickly become a source of delay. Although trains can be timetabled to miss each other on the single line, if one is running late, the next in the other direction may have to wait single line clearance before the junction on a busy main line, perhaps delaying following trains.

My main issue is the impact is has on the NLL/Overground, and future growth there and at Camden Road itself.

If one track at Camden Road became dedicated to HS1/2 transfer then the entire LO and freight traffic load would have to fit on the remaining single track through the junction, an impossible feat forcing a look at options to widen the bridge, share both tracks in some way or look at more radical alternatives.

I thought of an alternative that diverts the NLL via a short stretch of the MML through Kentish Town, obtaining better interchange with Thameslink and LUL Northern Line as well as a diverted Gospel Oak Barking service.

This Kentish Town idea could also offer another northern branch to absorb some Thameslink inner suburban services, running thence limited stop over the NLL (8 - car trains avoiding short platforms) to join diverted Watford DC lines at Willesden.

http://www.townend.me/files/kentishtown.pdf

With LUL Overground passenger services removed entirely from Camden Road, the 2 tracks through the bridge constraint could be shared flexibly between freight and HS transfer traffic, and the work to improve loading gauge clearance would not face the difficulty catering for UK high platforms that the wider HS only and other continental rolling stock cannot pass.

At the Camden Junction end the connector could join the WCML slow lines via a grade separated junction for freight traffic, with the tunnel continuation to Old Oak Common commencing at a portal near Primrose Hill.

http://www.townend.me/files/camdenjn.pdf

Note I've shown a double track portal for the Old Oak connection, although a single track would also be compatible with these junction arrangement if the separate single tunnel proposal for the connector is retained. Preferably, underground junctions near Camden would join the 2 tracks each from the Euston and HS1 lines into a shared 3 track system to Old Oak and HS2, a much more robust and flexible configuration.

 

[HSTEd]

Remember you could easily provide 400m of double track at each end to enable trains trying to use the connector to move clear of the main line while staying off the single track section.

 

[MarkyT]

Remember you could easily provide 400m of double track at each end to enable trains trying to use the connector to move clear of the main line while staying off the single track section.

I get the point, but 400m is too short. You'd need probably double that as a minimum so the trains can leave the main line at a sensible speed then decelerate on the branch. Otherwise the rear of the train will still be crawling over and blocking the junction as the driver inches up to the red signal protecting the single line.

 

[transmanche]

People coming from Manchester to Canary Wharf will be better off changing at OOC for Crossrail, than staying on to Stratford International. Where all they have is the wrong DLR branch. Frequency would be much lower too.

No. I was thinking of people going to Canary Wharf, Excel or nearby which will have direct Crossrail services from OOC.

But (as I said) there's more to Docklands than just Canary Wharf. And Stratford (with its myriad of connections) is now a major transport hub.

Which sounds better to a business thinking of relocating:

• Direct access to East London and the Stratford transport hub
• Direct access to Old Oak Common, where you can change onto the Express Metro (Crossrail) to Stratford - and then change again onto the line you require.

 

[OxtedL]

• Direct access to Old Oak Common, where you can change onto the Express Metro (Crossrail) to Stratford - and then change again onto the line you require.

Hang on, Old Oak common, potential future gateway to West London, all of north west England, large chunks of the West and South Wales, and one change away from considerable quantities of the South? I think you might be underselling it.

The entire debate here is the old problem of whether you should go for a more frequent service pattern, or a service pattern that serves more destinations. To which the answer is of course, it depends.

 

[Chris125]

Actually quite a squeeze on a single track all the way from Camden to Old Oak. In a busy area a link configured in this way can quickly become a source of delay.

The full capacity of the HS1-2 link is only ever likely to be used to its full capacity for through services off-peak, when it should be possible to use the platforms at OOC and Stratford International to compensate for any delays waiting to use the single track.

If one track at Camden Road became dedicated to HS1/2 transfer then the entire LO and freight traffic load would have to fit on the remaining single track through the junction, an impossible feat forcing a look at options to widen the bridge, share both tracks in some way or look at more radical alternatives.

Widening Camden Road Junction to three tracks, giving London Overground NLL services a pair of tracks throughout the Camden area independent from the HS1-2 link is now the scheme proposed by HS2 Ltd and is currently being consulted on.

Chris