• 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)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I am not convinced by the argument that a national railway line should benefit so few people, directly, so for such money. It's always come across as a rich man's project, putting the rich onto a fast line and reducing the rest of us to the slow ones.

Imagine spending £55bn on the regions? So much more opportunity, and unless Boris does the right thing, wasted.

Back to the same rhetoric again.

£55bn is for a railway line right into the centres of Manchester and Leeds, and just south of Wigan and York. Most definitely 'the regions'.

I can't be arsed explaining it to you any more. Bye.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Kingsbury Jn.

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2010
Messages
139
Location
Kingsbury, Warwickshire
I don't think that I will ever get it. Never have.

Thing is, I've held this view from the very start. When it was about speed, I didn't get it. When it was about capacity, I didn't get it. When it was confirmed that places like Lancaster would lose direct trains to London, I didn't get it. When it was admitted that ticket prices could cost more than flights, I didn't get it. When it was admitted that you can't catch a HS2 train because they're no intermediate stations, I didn't get it. When it's clear that there are no direct connections between HS1 and HS2, I didn't get it.

This forum is usually so grounded, so sensible, so cost wary, so suspicious of big ticket items, so when it appears to universally adore HS2, I simply don't get it.


According to the HS2 info for Lancashire, both Preston & Lancaster will have HS2 trains stopping and will go directly to London via the high speed southern section. As it will be faster on the new stock, maybe the existing services will be curtailed at Manchester and with extra stops included?

https://assets.publishing.service.g...hment_data/file/575887/RFS3_Lancashire_V2.pdf
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
Imagine spending £55bn on the regions? So much more opportunity, and unless Boris does the right thing, wasted.

What you fail to see is that for CP5 and CP6 which run alongside the current design and construction period of HS2, the budget for those will exceed £55bn. So there is still significant investment going on regardless of HS2
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
You perhaps have answered your own question. Politicians like the big ticket item over the mundane solution, so perhaps tinkering with Euston is the right thing to do while HS2 is an enclosure full of white elephants into which we're boldly marching.

white elephant
noun
a possession that is useless or troublesome, especially one that is expensive to maintain or difficult to dispose of.

Useless? No, there's predicted to be broadly the same number of user flows (i.e. a return ticket = 2) as the whole TGV network, which has 100 million a year, yet it's 1/3 the size.

Troublesome? Unlikely it will be a new build line with good drainage, few points and an access route alongside to allow maintenance to be done as soon as the last train has passed rather than starting to move along the line from when the last train has passed.

Expensive to maintain, because of the above the cost per mile will be less than that of the existing network. However even based on the £3bn spent on maintaining the existing 9,800 miles of network (in the last 9 years is only fine above £2.8bn twice, so is possibly a little high) it would be about £101 million (which is just £1 per user flow).

Difficult to dispose of? Why would we want to?

Can you explain why it would be a White Elephant? As based on the above, I'm struggling to understand why it would earn that definition.
 

The Nomad

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2018
Messages
44
The recurring mantra of HS2 protagonists is that this new railway is going to absorb all the fast trains, leaving the "classic" main lines running north from London with masses of spare capacity. I'm keeping an open mind about this theory but any thinking about creating more capacity on these lines should bear this theory in mind.
I don't think that I will ever get it. Never have.

Thing is, I've held this view from the very start. When it was about speed, I didn't get it. When it was about capacity, I didn't get it. When it was confirmed that places like Lancaster would lose direct trains to London, I didn't get it. When it was admitted that ticket prices could cost more than flights, I didn't get it. When it was admitted that you can't catch a HS2 train because they're no intermediate stations, I didn't get it. When it's clear that there are no direct connections between HS1 and HS2, I didn't get it.

This forum is usually so grounded, so sensible, so cost wary, so suspicious of big ticket items, so when it appears to universally adore HS2, I simply don't get it.

Good job you didn't live in the Victorian era or none of our lines would have got built. Presumably in favour of adding a few more locks to the canals here and there, perhaps exploring if adding an extra horse to the stagecoaches would be enough.

The fact you don't get it is more about either your lack of understanding or stubbornness. Needless to say there are more knowledgeable people than you who have studied the options and decided that this is the best for the country.

This forum, generally, celebrates railways and trains and moans about overcrowding and disruptions to services. It also has a lot of very knowledgeable insiders who have repeatedly explained to you, with many sources, facts and figures why you are wrong.

We don't get why you are so blinkered in yours views and continue to spout unsubstantiated rubbish, and appear to have such a loathing for something that will make millions of people's journeys better. Let's have a look just at what you wrote in the quote:

"When it was about speed, I didn't get it." Firstly if you're building a new line, why not make it fast - look at France, Germany, Spain, China, etc. Secondly, it's to compete with planes (London to Manchester) and cars (door to door is usually faster by car).
"When it was about capacity, I didn't get it." The current north to south rail network is full. New line = new capacity.
"When it was confirmed that places like Lancaster would lose direct trains to London, I didn't get it." So you reckon that there will be no direct train ON ANY LINE from Lancaster (presumably to London?)?. HS2 is about increasing capacity across all routes to lesser served places.
"When it was admitted that ticket prices could cost more than flights, I didn't get it." HS2 is expected to be the same as now, with advance tickets being cheap and walk-ups being expensive. You can find examples of where planes are cheaper than trains now, so why is this only a problem with HS2?
"When it was admitted that you can't catch a HS2 train because they're no intermediate stations, I didn't get it." As above with your isolated Lancaster point. But this is mainly that there are already intermediate stations on existing lines. HS2 is NOT REPLACING, HS2 is AUGMENTING. HS2 is aimed to scoop up more of the long distance journeys, so that existing lines can have a better mix of services.
"When it's clear that there are no direct connections between HS1 and HS2, I didn't get it." Whilst there's some merit in this idea, you're basically talking about building a new station to replace St Pancras in London and giving St Pancras to HS2. Where do you envision this new one to go? Between St Pancras and King's Cross, St Pancras and Euston? Could be issues there. How many people are wanting to transfer between these lines? How many of those won't walk the 10 minutes between Euston and St Pancras, or use the bus or tube?
"This forum is usually so grounded, so sensible, so cost wary, so suspicious of big ticket items, so when it appears to universally adore HS2, I simply don't get it." That's because everyone else gets it. And you don't.

If everyone is telling you, you're wrong, maybe you should start thinking about whether you are.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I am not convinced by the argument that a national railway line should benefit so few people, directly, so for such money. It's always come across as a rich man's project, putting the rich onto a fast line and reducing the rest of us to the slow ones.

Imagine spending £55bn on the regions? So much more opportunity, and unless Boris does the right thing, wasted.

The predicted number of HS2 user flows is 300,000/day. Depending on how you factor that up (by using any number between 300 & 365) you get to 90-110 million a year. That's like saying we should close Waterloo as it benefits only a few people.

That's before you consider any other side benefits, such as being able to use the existing paths for other services.

Although rail travel tends to be something which is generally undertaken by those with higher incomes, if suggest that a lot of that is down to the sort of people who can afford the few thousand pounds a year for a season ticket to commute into central London from over 30 minutes away (which is done in very big numbers, so potentially skews the figures).

However HS2 will have massive economys of scale (see my previous post regards the maintenance costs of the line). As well as lower (per 100 miles) lease costs and staff costs. However on some services these will be lower overall.

As an example London/Manchester, current round trip journey time 5 hours, so to run a 3tph service with 9 coaches per train requires 135 coaches. Compare this to HS2 which would have a 3 hour round trip time with 16 coaches which is 144 coaches.

Ah yes, but 135 is less than 144, so HS2 must have higher costs. Although that is correct you've missed that I've used 9 coach sets, of the 15 units needed to run the service you would 5 to be 11 coaches long before the existing services required more coaches.

This is where the "make the existing trains 12 coaches long" argument falls down. In that to run the Manchester services as 12 coaches would require 180 coaches, so would be more expensive to run than HS2. Over a 35 years life span it could be £125 million more (assuming £100,000/ coach in lease costs, which is probably a bit out of date but used to be a fairly good accurate ballpark for the cost of an EMU coach). That's before you consider that tilting trains are more expensive that non tilting trains.

That's before you consider staff costs. Assuming £50,000/year for drivers (BTW this would need to cover all staff costs, including ongoing training, uniform, pension, employer's NI contributions, etc. as such is probably a little low) being able to reduce the numbers from 15 to 9 is £300,000 in savings straight away, even if you kept the numbers of spares for cover the same. Guards could also be reduced, although with such a long train on quite a short journey there's an argument that you may want to double up. However to do so would mean 18 compared with 15, so the extra costs wouldn't be much and there's a need for less spares as a train could still run with one of the two rostered gaurds which would probably make it a zero cost overall.

Catering staff could be removed, as the number of people needing food/drinks on an hour long journey is likely to be fairly small. However assuming they were retained then there would be no need to increase their numbers like we've done with the gaurds. This would mean a reduction in their staff costs, again from 15 to 9.

Each of these costs each year isn't a lot compared to £56bn, however combine them and consider it over a 60 year period (with staff costs being subject to inflation so they're only going to increase as you go forward) and factor up to every service and the savings still aren't large but do start to be more noticeable.

There's already, in the last 9 years, been £25bn spent on enhancements (not maintenance, new trains or HS2, it also doesn't include much for Crossrail) to the existing network. Although there are improvements, overall the capacity of the network hasn't changed by very much not when compared to what would be achieved by HS2.

View media item 3339
Let's assume that smart timetabling works and gives us what? 20% increase in capacity? Well Virgin say 3% growth in the last year for which there's data, that's (at best) just 6 years of extra capacity before you need to do something else.

Why do I say at best 6 years? That's because passenger growth is much higher than predicted under the HS2 business case. Which means that 3% is on a much higher than predicted base.

Look at it this way, if we take 2009 as the base year with a base flow of 100 then at the opening of Phase 1 growth should have reached 152. Phase 2a would be 156. For 2017/18 it had reached 170 (rather than the expected 125). However you apply it 3% is higher on 170 (5.1) than 156 (4.68) or 125 (3.75).

Now with a base of 100 those numbers don't appear to make much of a difference. However on the London/North West flow the base in 2009 was over 6.5 million let's do that again:
2009 - 6.5 million
2018 (actual) - 11.21 million 3% is 336,000
Phase 2a opening - 10.25 million 3% is 308,000
2018 (predicted) - 8.22 million 3% is 247,000

That's nearly 90,000 extra passengers in growth in 2018 over the predicted, or 149 extra train loads of people in extra growth to cater for. That's on top of the near 3 million (2.99 million) compared to the prediction for 2028 and near 1 million (0.96 million) of growth to date over that predicted for the opening of Phase 2a. For the latter of which it's about 1,600 extra full train loads over that predicted.

At 170 it's not quite the 181 (compared to the baseline of 100 for 2009) predicted for the opening of Phase 2b. However assuming that the 3% is fairly evenly distributed that 170 will become 175 for the 2018/19 figures and we may not be far away from passing those predictions too.

In fact another single year of 3.4% growth or two years of 1.7% growth would do it. As such it's not a fantasy to say that we could see that happen in the 2020/21 passenger numbers and we'll be above predictions a decade before HS2 phase 2b is due to open (even if I'm one year out and it's 2021/22).

That's before you consider that the opening of Phase 1 will add even more growth to the network, meaning that the current predictions are going to be smashed and it could even be that other works are needed to keep the existing network running in a form which is usable by passengers.

Unless those who are opposed to HS2 can discredit the passenger growth then Borris' review is going to be fairly one sided. It may suggest that costs are better managed, it may delay the Eastern Arm (where growth hasn't been quite so large) to bring forwards the line to Manchester (where growth has been fairly high), it could even suggest that a new line to Liverpool be added to the mix ahead of the opening of the Eastern Arm to improve service frequency to Liverpool (although this is likely to be from Birmingham or on the existing tracks South of Crewe rather than from London). What is unlikely to say is that there's not the passenger numbers to justify doing something and without a viable alternative on the table (and people's suggestions aren't going to cut it if they can't prove them and provide costs for then) I would very much doubt that HS2 would be at any great risk of total canceling, or even being cancelled to Manchester, or much more than a delay to the full extent being built.

Even if it were then it would be back on the table within an election or two (depending on how long this and the next parliament last for). Those who are fighting The War Against Trains I fear have already lost and it's just a matter of time before this is becomes obvious to everyone. Especially given the groundswell in matters environmental in the last 2 years.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
If everyone is telling you, you're wrong, maybe you should start thinking about whether you are.

When you've excluded the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

You maybe someone think that HS2 is incredibly improbable, however there's few impossible schemes left as an alternative (meglev anyone?) meaning that there's little other choice than HS2.

Those opposed to HS2 are even publicly stating that they can't understand how HS2 services could run North of Sheffield as it would cost too much and be too difficult to upgrade the existing lines to cater for 2tph. I think that they are oblivious to the irony that they've just argued as to why we need HS2 everywhere else.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
I do love this forum for educated posts like the two above which are based on facts, you can't argue with facts

You can't argue with them, but in the words of a famous general, "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
According to the HS2 info for Lancashire, both Preston & Lancaster will have HS2 trains stopping and will go directly to London via the high speed southern section. As it will be faster on the new stock, maybe the existing services will be curtailed at Manchester and with extra stops included?

https://assets.publishing.service.g...hment_data/file/575887/RFS3_Lancashire_V2.pdf
I thought Preston was only getting 2 services per hour and everything north, 1.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
I am not convinced by the argument that a national railway line should benefit so few people, directly, so for such money. It's always come across as a rich man's project, putting the rich onto a fast line and reducing the rest of us to the slow ones.

HS2 will provide more trains and new direct journey opportunities to London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, York, Derby/Nottingham, and quite a few other places. Since when did the combined populations of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, York, Derby, Nottingham, and quite a few other places count as 'so few people'?

(And that's even before you start looking at the places that are likely to benefit indirectly - Milton Keynes, Watford, Rugby, Nuneaton, Bedford, Stevenage, Grantham, etc. Maybe even places like Lincoln and Grimsby).
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
If the ECML doesn’t need upgrading why pray are Network Rail spending money on untangling Kings Cross throat, Werrington Junction to name just two major projects?

Me thinks you have no idea what is actually needed in reality!
The King Cross throat works have been necessitated by the Thameslink invasion of Great Northern territory, not by some failing of the ECML. To avoid conflict with Thameslink trains crossing to and from the Canal Tunnels, it has been decided to bring back into use the eastern bores of Copenhagen and Gas Works Tunnels.

The Werrington dive-under is being done because it is planned to send more trains than previously along the Joint Line towards Spalding. This has prompted letters in railway magazines from railway professionals questioning Network Rail's priorities.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
Imagine spending £55bn on the regions? So much more opportunity, and unless Boris does the right thing, wasted.

Yeah, just imagine what you could do by spending that money in the regions. You could - say - electrify Manchester to Liverpool and Blackpool, cut Liverpool-Manchester journey times from just under an hour to just over half an hour. You could expand Metrolink in Manchester. You could order new trains for the Tyne and Wear metro, and a complete new fleet for Northern and TPE. Maybe you could even do some track works to enable a new Chester-Runcorn-Liverpool service. And to top it all, you could maybe build a new high speed line from Leeds to Birmingham that stops en route at Toton to serve the Nottingham/Derby area.

If only the Government was willing to spend some money in the regions... We can dream...

;)
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
HS2 will provide more trains and new direct journey opportunities to London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, York, Derby/Nottingham, and quite a few other places. Since when did the combined populations of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, York, Derby, Nottingham, and quite a few other places count as 'so few people'?

Not quite so direct to Derby and Nottingham. Nottingham isn't quite so bad - for many in the area it's no worse than travelling to the existing Nottingham station. But Derby will be pretty badly served by HS2 unless a lot of work goes into providing decent access. Caveat: I guess the assumption is that people will be willing to drive to the hub, which might well be true.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
The King Cross throat works have been necessitated by the Thameslink invasion of Great Northern territory, not by some failing of the ECML. To avoid conflict with Thameslink trains crossing to and from the Canal Tunnels, it has been decided to bring back into use the eastern bores of Copenhagen and Gas Works Tunnels.
Are you sure about this? Why has it never once been mentioned as part of the Thameslink project by Network Rail? I believe it is about ECML long distance capacity, which is a completely separate work stream; the last 2019 enhancements delivery plan had it funded under “ECML connectivity”.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
I don't think that I will ever get it. Never have.

Thing is, I've held this view from the very start. When it was about speed, I didn't get it. When it was about capacity, I didn't get it. When it was confirmed that places like Lancaster would lose direct trains to London, I didn't get it. When it was admitted that ticket prices could cost more than flights, I didn't get it. When it was admitted that you can't catch a HS2 train because they're no intermediate stations, I didn't get it. When it's clear that there are no direct connections between HS1 and HS2, I didn't get it.

This forum is usually so grounded, so sensible, so cost wary, so suspicious of big ticket items, so when it appears to universally adore HS2, I simply don't get it.
My emphasis.

We don't know what the post HS2 timetable will look like. So, your statement that "Lancaster would lose direct trains to London" and that this has been "confirmed", is not correct. Simply not correct.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
We don't know what the post HS2 timetable will look like. So, your statement that "Lancaster would lose direct trains to London" and that this has been "confirmed", is not correct. Simply not correct.

Unfortunately, the HS2 publicity has been poor. There is a route map clearly showing that whilst places like Warrington BQ and Wigan are still stopped at on the fast London - Glasgow runs, Lancaster isn't shown. Nor has there been any attempt by HS2 to update the map or deny the inference. So, as it stands, the only indications are that Lancaster will lose that service. If it wasn't the case, I'm sure HS2 media dept would have corrected that impression. There are at least 3 local MPs in North Lancashire and Cumbria campaigning about the lack of stops and they've not been re-assured yet either. People can only go by what they're being told and at the moment, HS2 have done absolutely nothing to counter the impression given that they won't be stopping at Lancaster.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Unfortunately, the HS2 publicity has been poor. There is a route map clearly showing that whilst places like Warrington BQ and Wigan are still stopped at on the fast London - Glasgow runs, Lancaster isn't shown. Nor has there been any attempt by HS2 to update the map or deny the inference. So, as it stands, the only indications are that Lancaster will lose that service. If it wasn't the case, I'm sure HS2 media dept would have corrected that impression. There are at least 3 local MPs in North Lancashire and Cumbria campaigning about the lack of stops and they've not been re-assured yet either. People can only go by what they're being told and at the moment, HS2 have done absolutely nothing to counter the impression given that they won't be stopping at Lancaster.
This is part of the reason why a lot of people are anti-HS2 - the awful, awful PR. If I just listened to the government PR, I would give zero expletives about HS2. It's only experts from this forum (and the poor arguments from anti-HS2 people) that have got me to such a pro-HS2 position.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
This is part of the reason why a lot of people are anti-HS2 - the awful, awful PR. If I just listened to the government PR, I would give zero expletives about HS2. It's only experts from this forum (and the poor arguments from anti-HS2 people) that have got me to such a pro-HS2 position.
And it's why you're not correct in suggesting that I'm wrong about Lancaster losing services. All official maps show Lancaster losing services as a result of HS2, and that's what I'm basing my opposition on .

A few posts ago two members wrote very detailed rebuttals to me, I'm at work so can't read them in full yet but will do so as soon as.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
And it's why you're not correct in suggesting that I'm wrong about Lancaster losing services. All official maps show Lancaster losing services as a result of HS2, and that's what I'm basing my opposition on .

A few posts ago two members wrote very detailed rebuttals to me, I'm at work so can't read them in full yet but will do so as soon as.
We don't know what the HS2 timetables will be. Nobody can confirm what the stopping patterns will be. Yet, you stated that those timetables had been confirmed. Timetables which don't exist yet. Something that doesn't exist can't be confirmed, nor can it offer confirmation to other things.

I can't say "HS2 trains will certainly call at Lancaster" for the same reason. That's why I don't say it. I wish sticking to the known facts was a universal thing.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
The King Cross throat works have been necessitated by the Thameslink invasion of Great Northern territory, not by some failing of the ECML. To avoid conflict with Thameslink trains crossing to and from the Canal Tunnels, it has been decided to bring back into use the eastern bores of Copenhagen and Gas Works Tunnels.

The Werrington dive-under is being done because it is planned to send more trains than previously along the Joint Line towards Spaulding. This has prompted letters in railway magazines from railway professionals questioning Network Rail's priorities.

By sending more services along the GE/GN Joint Line such as freight, it frees up capacity for more long distance passenger services between Peterborough and Doncaster.

It’s also spelt Spalding NOT Spaulding as you incorrectly spelt it!
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Are you sure about this? Why has it never once been mentioned as part of the Thameslink project by Network Rail? I believe it is about ECML long distance capacity, which is a completely separate work stream; the last 2019 enhancements delivery plan had it funded under “ECML connectivity”.

Exactly, well said!!!
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
By sending more services along the GE/GN Joint Line such as freight, it frees up capacity for more long distance passenger services between Peterborough and Doncaster.

It’s also spelt Spalding NOT Spaulding as you incorrectly spelt it!
Thank you for correcting my spelling mistake. I'll edit my post.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
Are you sure about this? Why has it never once been mentioned as part of the Thameslink project by Network Rail? I believe it is about ECML long distance capacity, which is a completely separate work stream; the last 2019 enhancements delivery plan had it funded under “ECML connectivity”.
Certainly with the increased number of trains to Leeds, Newcastle, Hull etc, those unused tunnels bores were an anomaly. On the other hand I don't believe it's just a bizarre co-incidence that the work is being done only after Thameslink have introduced a major new conflict immediately north of Gas Works Tunnel. The anomaly existed long before that.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
And it's why you're not correct in suggesting that I'm wrong about Lancaster losing services. All official maps show Lancaster losing services as a result of HS2, and that's what I'm basing my opposition on .

A few posts ago two members wrote very detailed rebuttals to me, I'm at work so can't read them in full yet but will do so as soon as.

If you look at the HS2 website, what it says for Lancaster is:

HS2 said:
HS2 trains will serve the current stations in Preston and Lancaster where passengers can access the high speed network.

HS2 Services in Lancashire

Lancaster from:
  • London, H2 time 101 minutes, current time 144 minutes. Via Interchange between HS2 services at Preston.
Preston to:

  • Birmingham Interchange, HS2 time 44 minutes, current time 116 minutes
  • Birmingham, HS2 time 50 minutes, current time 96 minutes
  • London, HS2 time 78 minutes, current time 128 minutes

(It says similar things for Oxenholme and Penrith).

What that is saying is that from Lancaster you will be able to get to London more quickly than at present with a change at Preston. That doesn't say that there won't be direct trains to London - merely that the fastest journeys will be with a change at Preston. Indeed, slightly confusingly, the webpage also directly states that HS2 will serve Lancaster without really saying how. Maybe there will be slower trains from London and Birmingham that stop at those stations? It's hard to say.

At any rate you cannot deduce from this that HS2 will definitely skip Lancaster, which is what you've been claiming.

The reality is - as @FelixtheCat has pointed out - that noone knows what the timetables in 2026 will be, for the very good reason that they have not been planned in any detail. That might possibly explain why HS2's own page seems to be contradictory. Indeed, even if HS2 isn't built, there's no cast iron guarantee that the DfT won't in a few years time decide for some reason to have Virgin services skip Lancaster. That seems very unlikely, but you can't rule it out.

The one thing we can be certain of is that HS2 will make it possible in principle for more and faster services to serve Lancaster and Cumbria from the South. I'd go further by suggesting that, since stations like Lancaster see considerable traffic to London, and since we can safely assume that the NR and DfT timetable planners aren't completely stupid, it's pretty unlikely that those stations would lose their direct services to London and Birmingham. However, even if they did, that wouldn't be a reason to oppose HS2 - it would be a reason to oppose the particular service pattern that the DfT proposes once HS2 is built.
 
Last edited:

PartyOperator

Member
Joined
26 May 2019
Messages
166
That's before you consider staff costs. Assuming £50,000/year for drivers (BTW this would need to cover all staff costs, including ongoing training, uniform, pension, employer's NI contributions, etc. as such is probably a little low) being able to reduce the numbers from 15 to 9 is £300,000 in savings straight away, even if you kept the numbers of spares for cover the same. Guards could also be reduced, although with such a long train on quite a short journey there's an argument that you may want to double up. However to do so would mean 18 compared with 15, so the extra costs wouldn't be much and there's a need for less spares as a train could still run with one of the two rostered gaurds which would probably make it a zero cost overall.

The total cost of an employee is usually more like double their base salary, even for roles that don't have the rigorous training, generous pensions etc. that are typical in rail. It wouldn't surprise me if one extra train driver cost well over £100k/year.
 

DaveB10780

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2015
Messages
210
This may have been covered before but as a WCML user joining at Stockport from a connecting service (as do quite a few others) I fail to see how HS2 will provide a faster journey. It seems likely to be more expensive and just as long or longer with more hassle organising trains.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
This may have been covered before but as a WCML user joining at Stockport from a connecting service (as do quite a few others) I fail to see how HS2 will provide a faster journey. It seems likely to be more expensive and just as long or longer with more hassle organising trains.

HS2 won't serve Stockport directly. However, if you're going to London or Birmingham, then you may find that travelling into Manchester Piccadilly and getting an HS2 train from there is quicker than you can currently do from Stockport - because the extra time travelling into Piccadilly is more than outweighed by the faster journey from Piccadilly (HS2 suggests it'll be 40 minutes to Birmingham, 1 hour 7 minutes to London, from Piccadilly).

In terms of fares... HS2 means there will be far more seats available. More seats is likely to mean cheaper fares because that's how business pricing usually works: The more of a product you have to sell, the cheaper you sell it in order to make sure you sell it all.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,400
"When it was admitted that ticket prices could cost more than flights, I didn't get it." HS2 is expected to be the same as now, with advance tickets being cheap and walk-ups being expensive. You can find examples of where planes are cheaper than trains now, so why is this only a problem with HS2?

I am curious as to how the ticket pricing will work when HS2 is up and running. If I want to travel from Horsham to Manchester, will I be able to buy a similarly priced ticket (allowing for inflation) as now and use any route, or will it operate like Gatwick Express where the standard walk up ticket is comparable to now with the condition of no HS2, and if I want to go via HS2, that will be £50 extra, or something like that, and so to keep the price acceptable I have to use the WCML and the stopping train taking half an hour longer? If the latter happens, that would effectively be regressive for my long distance rail journeys, so I can understand a bit of skepticism on the pricing front.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
I am curious as to how the ticket pricing will work when HS2 is up and running. If I want to travel from Horsham to Manchester, will I be able to buy a similarly priced ticket (allowing for inflation) as now and use any route, or will it operate like Gatwick Express where the standard walk up ticket is comparable to now with the condition of no HS2, and if I want to go via HS2, that will be £50 extra, or something like that, and so to keep the price acceptable I have to use the WCML and the stopping train taking half an hour longer? If the latter happens, that would effectively be regressive for my long distance rail journeys, so I can understand a bit of skepticism on the pricing front.
There is no firm evidence for premium pricing of HS2 services, or for special reservations or boarding restrictions, no matter how often it’s been posted in this forum...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top