Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
But that's very different from "HS2 isn't needed", which so far has been your argument. "HS2 is needed, but other things are needed more" is a stronger argument, certainly.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why is HS2 treated so differently by some Enthusiasts?
- Thread starter tbtc
- Start date
- Status
But that's very different from "HS2 isn't needed", which so far has been your argument. "HS2 is needed, but other things are needed more" is a stronger argument, certainly.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That's partly because most of the anti-campaign is led by rich Buckinghamshire NIMBYs, not people who care about public transport provision (aside from the service on the Chiltern Line that they actually use).
The case for Phase 2 is much weaker (the lines concerned don't need relieving as much) but I don't think it's a terrible thing either.
The case to go to Scotland is near non-existent.
Last edited:
Yes, the overlaps are clear of the points, meaning that a train can be rolling into one with a train moving out of the other (albeit a train arriving into 4 with a train departing 5 does so on a restricted overlap, thus getting a delayed yellow at the previous signal)
Snapper
Established Member
Actually, the case for phase 2 is stronger because it's not just about relieving capacity on the WCML South of Rugby. If you look at the business case and WEI (Wider Economic Impacts) it becomes clear that the real gains are on P2. Hs2 will kickstart massive urban regeneration projects in Manchester and Leeds. It also has the potential to do the same around the Manchester airport station and at Toton. The prospect of a new Yorkshire parkway station shouldn't be dismissed either.
As for the case for Scotland - I can assure you that the Scottish Government don't see it that way. There's some interesting things going on with them, Network Rail and the English Government at the moment...
Last edited:
Snapper
Established Member
If the Technical Annex is the 'argument' for HS2, there isn't much of an argument.
Does Manchester really need massive urban regeneration projects? It is doing pretty well. Why not focus on Blackburn or Burnley or Widnes for regeneration. Yeah, Manchester with an airport and train services that would make many European capitals blush really needs sorting out.
Last edited:
Two points, first off there is still an argument that building HS2 is better than doing nothing, as based on the assumed growth figures there is a need for significant improvements to core with the doubling of passenger numbers. If HS2 isn't built then the existing services will struggle to cope at peak times when ticket prices limit the number of people willing (of they have an alternative) to travel anyway.
Secondly, the assumed growth figures are less than what we are seeing, as such we could be in the situation where we stifle the ability of people to travel using rail. This could include people who are traveling between two points not directly along the HS2 route, as HS2 could help with capacity on other routes.
Other routes could include the SWML where the business case for Crossrail 2 improves increasing capacity and when partnered with the Southern Approach to Heathrow could reduce the numbers of people travelling on XC services as well as the number of people travelling to Waterloo to then use the tube network to then travel north.
The Heathrow Southern Approach could see a doubling of off peak services at some stations between Woking and Basingstoke (and a rise of at least 50% at others) and could mean that the is no need to use one of the paths created by Crossrail 2 as a Basingstoke stopper.
You and I can both see 'plans', 'opportunities', nothing concrete or absolutely certain. Just aspirations. No guarantee, no absolute guarantee, that a new railway line into Euston would regenerate Manchester.
As user Fowler9 says, there are much more suitable locations for investment, but I'm guessing Widnes is less "big ticket".
Still benefits the economies of Blackburn, Burnley and Widnes if their residents (current and prospective future) can benefit from new job opportunities that come about in Manchester/wherever directly or indirectly as a result of HS2. All are in a reasonable commuting distance.
Heck, Widnes (via Runcorn) comes within a feasible daily commute of London!
Envy123
Member
Ideally, the regeneration projects would alleviate some of the housing crisis by providing affordable homes within a reasonable commute to London. HS2 will offer competitive journey times but there are so many other factors involved in whether this would work.
Factors like cost of the HS2 season ticket and whether international investors will profit from people being priced out of London (and push prices up).
But isn't it likely that the satellite towns will just as easily dry up if people choose to move where the HS2 action is?
There's a danger that pro-HS2 people can say the project will do nothing but good, raining money from the skies, which will bite them somewhere tender if the positivity doesn't materialise.
No that doesn't make sense. All of the people living in Burnley, Blackburn, Satellite towns etc aren't going to move into Manchester because of the benefits of High Speed 2.
Instead they'll benefit from the additional job opportunities available in Manchester and continue living where they do.
Surrounding areas of London haven't got smaller or poorer as the city has grown - quite the opposite in fact (which btw is a very good thing).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Subsidising season tickets for people to commute from Birmingham to London would be a mind-blowingly stupid idea.
We should find ways to spread the wealth without having people commute 200 miles a day. It does nothing for quality of life nor productivity.
gordonthemoron
Established Member
However, should Milton Keynes services to Euston improve after HS2, that may encourage people to move out of London to buy what is presently quite reasonably priced property in MK, thus increasing the price and we can sell up and move somewhere else
absolutelymilk
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,243
Presumably the poster meant that homes could be built near Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds, and it then wouldn't be too hard to travel to London for a meeting.
Envy123
Member
I didn't mean subsidising season tickets, just that the homes have to be affordable when put alongside the cost of a HS2 season ticket so a lot of the pressure on building in London is alleviated.
Despite the intentions of HS2, there will be daily commuting of 200 miles or even more a day. My mother's industry (jewellery) relies on London to reach as many rich clients as possible. My industry is more spread out, but most jobs are still in London. With both our salaries combined, we can only afford a mortgage in Grantham or Newark for a good sized house, which means long-distance commuting, as there is no more room in our small flat for my grandma and we desperately need to upsize.
Unless there's an equal spread of jobs and wealth across UK cities, the commuting will likely spread out further and there will be pressures to extend HS2 to Newcastle and Edinburgh.
Better tell the DfT that then, as Birmingham - London season tickets are subsidised today!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
However, should Milton Keynes services to Euston improve after HS2, that may encourage people to move out of London to buy what is presently quite reasonably priced property in MK, thus increasing the price and we can sell up and move somewhere else
There is that
MK's undeserved poor reputation does make it one of the most affordable places in the South East that remains easily accessible to London for a commute and pleasant to live in.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
At just under £1,000 for a monthly[1], that isn't going to be attracting huge numbers of commuters. To turn Brum into London commuterville you're going to have to pitch it at MK levels, i.e. around £500, as the difference in house prices is not all that substantial (and certainly compared with Northampton). That would be a substantial increase to the subsidy.
[1] There is a "LM only" one cheaper, but that's irrelevant.
Last edited:
It very much depend on what people are after, if people want city living with arts venues and the like the Birmingham had a lot more to offer than either MK or Northampton.
Season tickets are only part of what people consider; there are those who own a London property and live there a few days a week, clearly a season ticket on an hour train journey would be significantly cheaper than that.
That's not to say that a lot of people will do that, rather there is more to it than just price. As such there could be enough people that do it to make it worth doing.
Of course it could be that with lots of capacity that the standard eye watering peak ticket prices between Birmingham and London are reduced to encourage usage. With about 1,000 seats per train and upto 18 trains per hour that's a lot more capacity than the current 700 seats per train on about 12 trains per hour (18,000 vs 8,400). As such HS2 could cut fares by a half to get double the number of people and still have the same percentage of available seats (but about double the number) and still not take any less money.
However, if they half ticket prices i would bet that passenger numbers would more than double, so they would end up taking more money. I would guess a doubling in passengers would quite probably be achieved with something like a 20% to 35% drop in ticket prices.
Yet staff costs wouldn't need to double to deal with that number of passengers, as there wouldn't be the need for much change in the number of drivers (more services being mostly offset by the fact that journey times are quicker, for instance 3 tph with a journey time of 1 hour needs the same number of drivers as a service on 2tph taking 90 minutes). Likewise even if you for a guard and a ticket checker (or some other customer facing non catering member of staff) on each train as well as extra catering staff the costs aren't going to increase by very much.
Train costs won't double, as although there will be more services with more coaches each unit will do more miles each day.
Although track access charges and power usage will increase they make up a fairly small cost of rail travel.
Trog
Established Member
There is that
MK's undeserved poor reputation does make it one of the most affordable places in the South East that remains easily accessible to London for a commute and pleasant to live in.
I worked there for a while use the station first thing in the morning and as you walked up towards the town, there were rats everywhere. Soul less sort of place.
Remember that prices are nothing to do with filling seats, they are to do with maximising revenue extracted from the passenger. One person may be willing to pay upto £40 for a journey before considering alternatives (different time, different method, not travelling), one upto £60, one upto £120, one upto £200.
If there are only 3 seats, and there are penalties for standing, the task that the TOCs have is to ensure that not just the £200 person travels, but the £120 and the £60, that raises £370 in revenue. They have to ensure the £40 doesn't, and ideally takes another train.
If they price the ticket at £200 they'll raise £200 and have 2 empty seats
If they price at £120 they'll raise £240 and have 1 empty seat
If they price at £60 they'll raise £240 and have 0 empty seats
If they price at £40 they'll raise £160 and have standing.
If they can somehow charge those individual fares, then they have 0 empty seats and £370 in revenue.
They do this by things like making Lancaster-London tickets cheaper than Preston-London, by selling advanced tickets (and indeed advanced from certain stations and not others)
If the goal of HS2 is to transport the maximum number of people, then reducing the price will increase the number of seats, even if it abstracts passengers from the road/air and from slower services.
If the goal is to make the most money (or require the least subsidy), the trains will be like the 'peak' manchester-london train I'm on now, with just 1 of the 9 seats I can see from my current seat occupied, but they'll be charging £250 each way, and those who want to pay less will take the slower WCML stopping services, meaning that any extra capacity there won't be realised.
I suspect the latter.
If there are only 3 seats, and there are penalties for standing, the task that the TOCs have is to ensure that not just the £200 person travels, but the £120 and the £60, that raises £370 in revenue. They have to ensure the £40 doesn't, and ideally takes another train.
If they price the ticket at £200 they'll raise £200 and have 2 empty seats
If they price at £120 they'll raise £240 and have 1 empty seat
If they price at £60 they'll raise £240 and have 0 empty seats
If they price at £40 they'll raise £160 and have standing.
If they can somehow charge those individual fares, then they have 0 empty seats and £370 in revenue.
They do this by things like making Lancaster-London tickets cheaper than Preston-London, by selling advanced tickets (and indeed advanced from certain stations and not others)
If the goal of HS2 is to transport the maximum number of people, then reducing the price will increase the number of seats, even if it abstracts passengers from the road/air and from slower services.
If the goal is to make the most money (or require the least subsidy), the trains will be like the 'peak' manchester-london train I'm on now, with just 1 of the 9 seats I can see from my current seat occupied, but they'll be charging £250 each way, and those who want to pay less will take the slower WCML stopping services, meaning that any extra capacity there won't be realised.
I suspect the latter.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Its big problem is that everyone judges it on its fairly basic "business park with a shopping centre and leisure complex attached" centre that has all the charisma of a strip mall.
It has some lovely estates, linear parks, greenery, hidden unspoilt old villages etc. It has a network of near-fully segregated cycle and pedestrian paths almost on the Dutch model. Kids can have their mobility (on their bike) without the worry of roads. The quality of life is very high.
The problem is that those who pass through the town or work in the centre or industrial areas don't see it because of the segregated road system.
Last edited:
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,739
You have to account that ICWC and LM are still subsidised to a significant degree by the DfT. Especially in the former case the cost of operating per passenger mile is likely to be much greater than the cost of operating the high speed system for reasons stated above.
Therefore it is in the DfTs interest that people use HS2 instead of the classic line - so the trains will be priced accordingly.
Therefore it is in the DfTs interest that people use HS2 instead of the classic line - so the trains will be priced accordingly.
Trog
Established Member
There are also some really dire estates, and Bletchley High Street is not so much run down as run over. The big sign over the solicitors advertising Criminal Defence services etc. tells you all you need to know about the area.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There are far fewer dire estates (and they are far less dire) than most other large towns/cities with which it is comparable.
Bletchley High St has effectively moved to the Stadium where there is a popular retail park with all the big names, restaurants and a cinema plus Asda and Ikea (and Tesco and another smaller strip mall not far away). It could probably do with being re-zoned/redeveloped into a premium residential area. The other side of the railway bridge (almost American-style) is a well-off residential area with some very nice, large houses.
Last edited:
Surely, they'd have £380 in "revenue".
But in reality, a great deal of rail companies' "revenue" is government subsidy. For example, in Scotland around three quarters of railway revenue is subsidy (IIRC).
Is the goal of HS1 to transport the maximum number of people?
All Line Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 5,222
As I have said previously, I'm not certain that HS2 season tickets will be regulated, just as Eurostar season tickets are not regulated (in that they don't exist). When a new market is created, there are no existing customers who need "protecting", unlike when BR was privatised.
That being said, if the long distance WCML service is decimated such that WCML services are no longer suitable for commuting from Crewe / Stoke / Stafford / Coventry / etc, it would not be appropriate for HS2 season tickets from these stations to be unregulated.
That being said, if the long distance WCML service is decimated such that WCML services are no longer suitable for commuting from Crewe / Stoke / Stafford / Coventry / etc, it would not be appropriate for HS2 season tickets from these stations to be unregulated.
- Status