Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If the tender didn't simply go to the lowest bidder, that would be factored into a sensible price.
-
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 are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)
- Thread starter ABB125
- Start date
- Status
If the tender didn't simply go to the lowest bidder, that would be factored into a sensible price.
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
The situation with that airport is beyond bizarre and most un-Germanic. TBH I wonder if they'd be best razing it to the ground and going out to tender to start again.
However, competition is a significant part of this, which classic economic theory, as here, normally ignores. But that is why HS1 and South Eastern were rolled into one franchise, and why the same has been done on HS2 and West Coast. If they were awarded as competing franchises instead life for HS2 commercially would be a real challenge. I wonder if DfT will cook the books further, and roll Chiltern into the same franchise as well, to eliminate competition further.
I do recall that when the HS1 Kent services were first launched, after a while several of the 5-car sets were parked, and peak services cut down from twin units to one, because in revenue terms this gave a better return than adjusting the fares to increase the demand.
The real example is Eurostar, which was portrayed during construction, and rolling stock built accordingly, as a mass-market high volume shuttle between the cities. But it has turned out nothing like that. Fares were pitched way higher than the original plan, and passengers much reduced compared to plan, but overall this gave the best return to Eurostar. The fact that it no way met the objectives of the governments was by the by. A good proportion of the initial fleet were parked, some of course eventually sold off to SNCF for domestic runs. The rolling stock utilisation is decidedly thin, for a 2.5 hour journey to Paris few sets make much more than one return trip a day. For all that this may look poor asset utilisation, in fact most of the costs are directly related to usage rather than fixed. And you try and buy a walk-up ticket on the day and see how much it costs - that substantial market has been pretty much eliminated by their pricing plan.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
[
Don't know where your destination is, but you will probably have to change somewhere and travel in suburban Aventras to get there.
The point of HS2 is to move long distance services off the southern WCML (and eventually MML, ECML).
Don't know where your destination is, but you will probably have to change somewhere and travel in suburban Aventras to get there.
The point of HS2 is to move long distance services off the southern WCML (and eventually MML, ECML).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
What this needs is for the franchise to be let on the basis that the aim is, as Virgin Trains once coined as a phrase, to close down domestic air travel and grass over the M6 - i.e. for the objective to be to get "bums on seats" and not simply to maximise revenue in and of itself. This would require a contract in which the TOC was paid by a formula involving both income and tickets sold rather than simply income - if you could earn 5 grand for filling a train or 5 grand for say 200 people on it, they would receive much more money for the former than the latter - effectively a penalty for not filling trains to a particular figure (say 95%, as that would allow for walk-ups without standing passengers).
Rail is about 2% of journeys nationally (as another thread highlights) - that 98% is the real competition, not spatting between TOCs for rail passengers. I would personally like to see on-rail competition outright banned and for all new franchise agreements to be specifically worded to achieve this end.
Domestic air travel parallel to HS2 is pretty much non-existent, contrary to much belief. Most passengers on London Heathrow to Manchester, the only air trunk service in any way competitive, is either connecting within Heathrow, or has passengers travelling to Surrey/Berkshire/ Thames Valley who will find it just as inconvenient to get to HS2 as to the current service. In fact quite a lot of high-fare travel from Bucks and Herts which used to use Watford Junction to go northwards has been deliberately lost since Virgin curtailed the stops there, and which in no way will be replicated by HS2. It's far easier to get to Heathrow from those points.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
HS2 is relevant to Scotland, and there is still a lot to/from there. The M1 and M6 are also full of traffic jams so there are plenty of car journeys that need to be moved onto the rails.
It's as bad as buses. Operators spat over passengers from the other bus company rather than competing on quality and value (rather than simply price) to get people to choose not to use their car. Only a few "bright lights" of the industry (most of which have had Alex Hornby involved in them at some point) actually take this seriously.
And Freight...
kevin_roche
Member
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 930
I'm hoping that they will go forward with the full Southern Heathrow Railway plan so we can get to Old Oak Common easily to get HS2.
I recall the latest idea is indeed to build a second (compliant) terminal, then demolish the unopened first terminal, and try again.
Beyond farcial.
Polarbear
Established Member
You could probably argue though, that Old Oak Common would be almost as easy to access as Heathrow Airport for those living in the home counties.
Sort of, Ryanair built themselves a new "Terminal" in 18months from drawing board to opening as a temporary fix.
kevin_roche
Member
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 930
It would be for me if they built the Heathrow Southern Railway. OOC would just be the next stop on my train from Basingstoke.
Peter Kelford
Member
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 903
Which will serve to further imbalance economic growth in the UK.
yoyothehobo
Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 553
Paris Beauvais for starters anyone!.
To be fair this is the same tactic SNCF Ouigo are using for their cheap 10 euro advance fares. A high speed train that cheaply with no frills gets you roughly near where you want to go.
To be fair this is the same tactic SNCF Ouigo are using for their cheap 10 euro advance fares. A high speed train that cheaply with no frills gets you roughly near where you want to go.
Take for example, Glasgow Central to London Terminals via air. It'll take you twenty minutes to get out to Glasgow Airport, about an hour to get onto the plane, 90 minutes to get to Heathrow, fifteen minutes to come off the plane, 20 minutes to get into London. So, between three and a half and four hours.
HS2 will bring the rail time down to be similar to that, and will be less of a hassle than going through airport security.
So HS2, hopefully, will make the bottom fall out of that aviation market, like how Eurostar has reduced demand for London–Paris and London–Amsterdam short-hops.
yoyothehobo
Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 553
You could even do what Air Austral do in France and actually do some code share with rail routes. Flight UU5247 is a TGV from Le Mans to Charles De Gaulle and is able to be through booked on Air Australs website. Now if you can do that in the UK, cut down on the regional flights to Heathrow (Newcastle, Leeds, Glasgow and Manchester, Edinburgh in particular) then you can save the frequently annoying short hops and cut down on a significant number of flights.
Or seen as Heathrow isnt going to have a dedicated HS2 (correct me if i am wrong) station, it may allow extra regional flights to International destinations as the airline will be able to offer through booking to an airport with cheaper landing slots without running short hop flights.
As mentioned above, its not about getting train travellers onto HS2, its about getting air and car travellers onto HS2.
Just a thought.
Or seen as Heathrow isnt going to have a dedicated HS2 (correct me if i am wrong) station, it may allow extra regional flights to International destinations as the airline will be able to offer through booking to an airport with cheaper landing slots without running short hop flights.
As mentioned above, its not about getting train travellers onto HS2, its about getting air and car travellers onto HS2.
Just a thought.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
OK, now you're starting to apply some logic
And yes, it's true that rail networks are somewhat different from free markets. Most obviously, the Government regulates some fares, and there are huge barriers to entry to other train companies (but NOTE: Not to coach companies, planes, or people simply driving - which all provide competition to the train). But the principles still apply, because companies/the Government will be setting fares in the knowledge that people do have alternatives, and they have to set fares to get a reasonable income in the light of the competition from other transport modes (other perhaps than for the central London commuter market for which driving is usually impractical). So in practice, I'd argue that HS2 fares will end up not too dissimilar from what the free market would determine.Also, it's almost certainly incorrect to state that it's a monopoly. It'll only be a rail monopoly if the Governments hands the franchises for HS2, Chiltern, Virgin, and LNWR all to the same company - which seems unlikely. And even then, you still have competition from the car and coaches etc (albeit the very high speed of HS2 will tend to make it harder for those to compete).
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
Care to explain? As far as I can see taking the long distance trains off the MML and ECML will allow more frequent services to be given to the places which currently see most trains go through without stopping, thus giving them improved connectivity.
I unwatched this thread a few days ago after things became very heated and adversarial.
In the intervening days I downloaded the HS2 report from the House of Lords website and read some of the recent responses to this thread. This post is a kind of "once more with feeling" summary of how I currently feel about HS2, though I doubt that I will make a permanent return to this thread afterwards. I think all of us - pro- and anti- - have perhaps allowed passions to overtake our input, particularly with our demands on each others' time.
Anyroad, here goes.
Ticket prices
It is correct to say that nobody yet knows what the ticket prices will be. Maybe they will be comparable to the existing intercity prices, maybe not. I still believe, though, that HS2 will not be priced at an acceptable level for the everyday passenger. That is my greater concern.
It is not helpful to suggest that HS2 prices could be lower than existing WCML ticket prices. We all know this won't happen.
Starting from the North
One of the main headlines taken from the Committee's report was that the project should have started from the North, rather than Euston. I read some comments on this thread which rejected this idea, stating that HS2 needs to deal with congestion first and the North second.
I reject this opinion.
The North should have been the starting point for HS2, and for the reasons given in the report. By investing in the North first, HS2 could have been a real solution to the imbalanced economy. helping to draw investment into the North, bring connectivity to regional railways across the north and Midlands, and allowed the major cities of the North to reach their full potential.
Instead the North has to be put "on hold", and not for the first time.
I also read a comment on here suggesting that HS2 has to bring London closer to the rest of the UK, before it does anything else. Again, I reject this opinion.
By selling HS2 as "making it easier to get to London," the tacit admission is "...because the rest of the country has nothing going for it." Once again, London wins while the North loses. I am a proud northener before anything else, and hearing "HS2 must be built so London is closer for the rest of us," does not sit well with me at all.
Had there been any truth in "HS2 will rebalance the economy," as it was once claimed, it would have been started in Manchester, not Euston.
Budgets do, and don't, matter
Unless June's spending review decides otherwise, the overall budget for HS2 is around £55bn. The Committee's report casts some doubt on this figure, and even suggests that the BCR is less convincing than it once was.
I know that some people on this thread believe that the overall cost will be higher than £55bn. For some, this is not important. For others, this is a red line.
I am very suspicious about people who don't seem to mind or care about the upper ceiling of a project's overall cost. It is neither responsible nor sustainable to believe that HS2 should cost whatever it ends up costing, regardless.
If we must support this scheme on a dodgy premise, at least avoid using dodgy maths to justify the cost. Any penny spent over £55bn must be accounted for.
Not supporting HS2
The Committee's report is yet another example of HS2 not winning over its major critics. While supportive voices try to make their case, time and time again the winning arguments are made by doubters, opponents and sceptics.
My opposition remains resolute. I cannot be convinced by the scheme because, as each passing week seems to show, the justification for HS2 is thinner than rice paper. Instead of helping the North, it's just regenerating Camden; instead of rebalancing the economy, it's underscoring the idea that London matters beyond all others; instead of investment for the North, it's leaving the North to gather cobwebs.
I understand that people must get frustrated and passionate because they worry about the UK mothballing yet another supposedly vital infrastructure scheme. I guess some must scream at their laptops, "Why can't you see what we can see?!"
However, ultimately, my opinion aligns with the House of Lords' report: HS2 was ill-defined from the start, has not secured its own identity even after all these years, and fails in its task to help the economy of the North.
I will never use HS2, not one single inch, and the past few days have simply underlined my belief that there will be a time when the views of the opposition will win the day.
In the intervening days I downloaded the HS2 report from the House of Lords website and read some of the recent responses to this thread. This post is a kind of "once more with feeling" summary of how I currently feel about HS2, though I doubt that I will make a permanent return to this thread afterwards. I think all of us - pro- and anti- - have perhaps allowed passions to overtake our input, particularly with our demands on each others' time.
Anyroad, here goes.
Ticket prices
It is correct to say that nobody yet knows what the ticket prices will be. Maybe they will be comparable to the existing intercity prices, maybe not. I still believe, though, that HS2 will not be priced at an acceptable level for the everyday passenger. That is my greater concern.
It is not helpful to suggest that HS2 prices could be lower than existing WCML ticket prices. We all know this won't happen.
Starting from the North
One of the main headlines taken from the Committee's report was that the project should have started from the North, rather than Euston. I read some comments on this thread which rejected this idea, stating that HS2 needs to deal with congestion first and the North second.
I reject this opinion.
The North should have been the starting point for HS2, and for the reasons given in the report. By investing in the North first, HS2 could have been a real solution to the imbalanced economy. helping to draw investment into the North, bring connectivity to regional railways across the north and Midlands, and allowed the major cities of the North to reach their full potential.
Instead the North has to be put "on hold", and not for the first time.
I also read a comment on here suggesting that HS2 has to bring London closer to the rest of the UK, before it does anything else. Again, I reject this opinion.
By selling HS2 as "making it easier to get to London," the tacit admission is "...because the rest of the country has nothing going for it." Once again, London wins while the North loses. I am a proud northener before anything else, and hearing "HS2 must be built so London is closer for the rest of us," does not sit well with me at all.
Had there been any truth in "HS2 will rebalance the economy," as it was once claimed, it would have been started in Manchester, not Euston.
Budgets do, and don't, matter
Unless June's spending review decides otherwise, the overall budget for HS2 is around £55bn. The Committee's report casts some doubt on this figure, and even suggests that the BCR is less convincing than it once was.
I know that some people on this thread believe that the overall cost will be higher than £55bn. For some, this is not important. For others, this is a red line.
I am very suspicious about people who don't seem to mind or care about the upper ceiling of a project's overall cost. It is neither responsible nor sustainable to believe that HS2 should cost whatever it ends up costing, regardless.
If we must support this scheme on a dodgy premise, at least avoid using dodgy maths to justify the cost. Any penny spent over £55bn must be accounted for.
Not supporting HS2
The Committee's report is yet another example of HS2 not winning over its major critics. While supportive voices try to make their case, time and time again the winning arguments are made by doubters, opponents and sceptics.
My opposition remains resolute. I cannot be convinced by the scheme because, as each passing week seems to show, the justification for HS2 is thinner than rice paper. Instead of helping the North, it's just regenerating Camden; instead of rebalancing the economy, it's underscoring the idea that London matters beyond all others; instead of investment for the North, it's leaving the North to gather cobwebs.
I understand that people must get frustrated and passionate because they worry about the UK mothballing yet another supposedly vital infrastructure scheme. I guess some must scream at their laptops, "Why can't you see what we can see?!"
However, ultimately, my opinion aligns with the House of Lords' report: HS2 was ill-defined from the start, has not secured its own identity even after all these years, and fails in its task to help the economy of the North.
I will never use HS2, not one single inch, and the past few days have simply underlined my belief that there will be a time when the views of the opposition will win the day.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
I disagree, plenty of reasons which have been explained to you why HS2 is starting from Euston not Manchester.
For starters it frees up capacity on multiple mainlines eg London to Birmingham on both the Chiltern and West Coast Mainlines by sending IC services via HS2 meaning improved services on the classic lines.
In Birmingham, it frees up platform capacity at New Street by sending IC services onto HS2 by providing more platform capacity for local services and the same applies at Moor Street and Snow Hill.
More local and regional services must be good and this is only possible with the freed up capacity provided by HS2.
For starters it frees up capacity on multiple mainlines eg London to Birmingham on both the Chiltern and West Coast Mainlines by sending IC services via HS2 meaning improved services on the classic lines.
In Birmingham, it frees up platform capacity at New Street by sending IC services onto HS2 by providing more platform capacity for local services and the same applies at Moor Street and Snow Hill.
More local and regional services must be good and this is only possible with the freed up capacity provided by HS2.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
OK thanks for the clarification.
I think I would still argue that the laws of supply and demand are relevant because - even when the Government sets the fares - they will be doing so with a reasonable amount of knowledge of what the market is likely to be able to support. They are not going to set fares that are massively different from what (they believe) would be supported by the balance between supply and demand, because they'd be shooting themselves (or perhaps, the TOC) in the foot if they did that. And of course, SouthEastern are still free to set up offers in order to attract customers. They haven't really taken advantage of this as much as some other TOCs, but I have on a few occasions managed to take advantage of SouthEastern 20%-off book-online discounts for trips to Kent - so clearly they are doing some stuff to try to appeal to the market.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
We do NOT all know this won't happen. That's an assertion that you keep making despite your having been provided in this thread with quite a bit of evidence that it's probably not true. Several of us have provided you with perfectly good reasons why it is quite likely that building HS2 will cause many ticket prices to be lower than they would be if HS2 doesn't get built. But it seems, you're not willing to listen to any evidence that contradicts your existing beliefs
EM2
Established Member
HS1 was on time and on budget.
1. Whether it should have started in the North or South doesn't really matter now, because it's already started.
2. There is a clear plan to allow trains from a Euston - Trent Valley/ Crewe HS2 to continue north to serve various destinations. If Manchester - Birmingham had been built first how would trains feed onto an already congested WCML (south) ? And the likes of Liverpool and (cough) Preston wouldn't benefit !
EM2
Established Member
So, just supposing that everything you expect to happen doesn't.
It's not cancelled, it's built on time and on budget.
Tickets are good value, service patterns align with journeys that you wish to make, and save you time.
You would be so rigid in your principles that you would still refuse to use HS2?
EM2
Established Member
I don't understand that stance, but I do admire it.
Firstly, if you have a problem with the numbers that I've provided to show that HS2 ticket prices COULD be cheaper and still fund the project.
Do I think that this would actually be the case, for most part people will probably need to pay the current typical ticket costs.
However it does that ticket prices don't need to be more expensive to pay for the construction & running of the trains.
Last edited:
- Status