HS2 - good for the provinces?

[Ianno87]

That has not yet been passed into law, yes.

Currently planned timescales (assuming Hybrid Bill passes as planned) being opening a mere 1 year after London-West Midlands opens (which was only itself passed last year). Accelerated quite considerably from the original plan to have nothing north of Lichfield at all before 2033 (7 years post L-WM)

Splitting such a large project into phases is necessary to make it deliverable and fund-able.

 

[snowball]

Currently planned timescales (assuming Hybrid Bill passes as planned) being opening a mere 1 year after London-West Midlands opens (which was only itself passed last year).

This year.

 

[The Planner]

That has not yet been passed into law, yes.

And why won't this one pass through with the minimum of hassle?

 

[The Ham]

I'm not against motorways, main rail lines, or internal flights. I am against HS2.

What is HS2 if it isn't a main line railway?

It is likely to be the main line between Birmingham and Leeds (sub 1 hour vs 2 hours currently) as well as between Birmingham and Manchester (sub 45 minutes vs circa 90 minutes currently).

For those that live on the lines between which aren't served by HS2 all (even if it's only some this will also be true) the long distance passengers will not be using the slower services and so there will be more space on the slower services. Slower services like the XC trains.

I would point out that HS2 is like the motorways, the existing intercity lines are like the trunk road and everything else is other distributor roads. As such the longer distance passengers move from the existing trunk network to the high-speed network providing more space for more local traffic to exist.

 

[edwin_m]

I agree with you, but I'm not sure that the people in charge of this country have yet grasped this.

Along with quite a few other things I fear.

 

[Deerfold]

Both of you are being very silly and just a touch naughty, let's be honest.

Really? They sound like reasonable questions to me, certainly ad hominem attacks don't make your case look stronger.

 

[PR1Berske]

Really? They sound like reasonable questions to me, certainly ad hominem attacks don't make your case look stronger.

Not an ad hominem attack. Stretching my argument beyond all reasonable care is mischievous, at best.

I answered the questions put to me.

 

[The Ham]

Not an ad hominem attack. Stretching my argument beyond all reasonable care is mischievous, at best.

I answered the questions put to me.

I would suggest not stretching the argument hardly at all.

I have a question for you, what so you say in response to my post about my locality and how London impacts on that. As it is closer to London than most places on HS2 (except Birmingham) will probably be cheaper to get to London from than most place on HS2 (assuming current ticket prices) unless HS2 results cheaper tickets and yet only about 5% travel to London for work. Yet by your argument (and this is what the others have been getting at) you are saying that HS2 will result in something dramatically different happening in what are already much bigger hub settlements than where I live. Therefore can you explain how you come to this conclusion?

 

[PR1Berske]

Ticket prices may not be close to existing inter-city rail travel, and nothing from HS2 itself suggests that ticket prices won't end up being closer to airline price than rail prices. I say this because you cannot base your argument on HS2 being good for the provinces if its on the basis of existing or even cheaper tickets.

My earlier response to the thread's question was an emphatic "no". I base this conclusion on the HS2 model. It serves London, already well served by rail links. It only reaches the Midlands, on current plans, and does so with barely any intermediate stations, so cannot serve the counties through it is built (motorways have junctions, HS2 hardly boasts a single station between points A and B).

 

[Ianno87]

Ticket prices may not be close to existing inter-city rail travel, and nothing from HS2 itself suggests that ticket prices won't end up being closer to airline price than rail prices. I say this because you cannot base your argument on HS2 being good for the provinces if its on the basis of existing or even cheaper tickets.

My earlier response to the thread's question was an emphatic "no". I base this conclusion on the HS2 model. It serves London, already well served by rail links. It only reaches the Midlands, on current plans, and does so with barely any intermediate stations, so cannot serve the counties through it is built (motorways have junctions, HS2 hardly boasts a single station between points A and B).

There are proposals for the whole network and, unless you have firm evidence to suggest otherwise, we have no reason to believe at this stage why Phases 2A and 2B won't follow Phase 1 in being passed into law (which has *only just been passed itself!*). As explained, it is split into phases for very good reasons, and does not represent (in my view) any kind of non-commitment to the northern sections of the scheme, that benefit non-London flows. If anything, it's borderline politically untenable to pull back now.

As has been explained to you to death, towns and cities connected to London benefit economically from doing so. HS2 has few intermediate stations for very good reasons - it is essentially intended to take the current Pendolino service off the WCML Fast Lines and onto HS2.

Have you ever tried getting to (say) Milton Keynes for 0900 from Birmingham or Warrington or Liverpool since 2008? Even the Trent Valley stations have limited options with poor journey times. Answer is you pretty much can't as the WCML Fast Lines are full of non-stop Pendolino after non-stop Pendolino taking people to jobs and business opportunities in London.

If post-HS2 the Fasts are devoid of Pendolinos, then there is the opportunity to better connect Watford, MK, Rugby to the Midlands and North West with new services than exists today. To a lesser extent a not dissinilar logic could apply on the Chiltern Main Line (if it gets less obsessed about trying to serve the Birmingham-London market). So saying that HS2 does not benefit intermediate locations just because it doesn't have many intermediate stations is a fallacy.

Re: fares. My supposition (not fact or evidence based) is that something like the current Pendolino pricing model will be order of the day. I.e. Pay through the nose for peak London travel (essentially an indirect tax on doing business in London - surely what you would love?), but then cheaper off peak/advance** type fares to fill capacity the rest of the time. This railway is going to have oodles of capacity to fill to pay its way.

**I'm simultaneously looking at Advance Fares from Cambridge to Birmingha via VTWC from Euston on a Saturday morning in a couple months time for £9.25. RPI notwithstanding, I see no reason why similar fares could not be offered for travel via HS2. In the meantime keeping me off the busy XC service for Leicester, Peterborough etc. to benefit.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ticket prices may not be close to existing inter-city rail travel, and nothing from HS2 itself suggests that ticket prices won't end up being closer to airline price than rail prices.

I must look up London - Birmignham airline prices.

(And besides, airline prices London - Scotland are generally cheaper than h train on a like for like basis, except walk up).

 

[The Ham]

Ticket prices may not be close to existing inter-city rail travel, and nothing from HS2 itself suggests that ticket prices won't end up being closer to airline price than rail prices. I say this because you cannot base your argument on HS2 being good for the provinces if its on the basis of existing or even cheaper tickets.

My earlier response to the thread's question was an emphatic "no". I base this conclusion on the HS2 model. It serves London, already well served by rail links. It only reaches the Midlands, on current plans, and does so with barely any intermediate stations, so cannot serve the counties through it is built (motorways have junctions, HS2 hardly boasts a single station between points A and B).

Err, how's that answering my question that I put to you. The only thing I did about ticket prices was that from my local station (which is an hour away from London that ticket prices will be cheaper than HS2 an hour away from London unless HS2 results in lower ticket prices than at current, and then probably by quite a margin than at present, for instance from my local station is circa £60 from Manchester is circa £210 for an any time return. Therefore HS2 would have to cut by about 70% the cost to be comparable) yet from my local District council area (which had more than one station to travel to London from and all are about an hour's journey and nine are more than a 20 minute drive from anywhere within the borough) only had about 5% of people working in London. Therefore can you explain how, for instance Manchester is going to be impacted differently than my home town by HS2 than my local station?

HS2 is assuming to allow travel between Birmingham and Leeds in 1 hour compared to the current 2 hours, yet you say that's not s betterment. Exeter to Manchester (assuming a 30 minutes change time at Birmingham) would be 15 minuted faster, yet that's not a betterment. Cardiff to Newcastle (again assuming a 30 minutes change at Birmingham) would be over 30 minutes faster, yet that's not a betterment. Others have already started that there journey is going to improve, even though it's starting from an area that's not anywhere near HS2.

Anyway, as you always answer questions to you I expect a full response to my question above the next time you post, as I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed my last post (even though it's the post before yours and I posed several hours before yours).

 

[PR1Berske]

The Ham, I have tried to understand the question put to me in your paragraph, but it's not phrased very clearly.

You reference the cost of tickets, then percentage of workers to London, then ask about Manchester, your home town, and your local station. I don't know where your town is, what your local station is, or what you're asking me to say.

I've never said that cuts in journey times aren't a "betterment". I just don't accept that it's necessary to spend 40bn on 10 minutes, or 15 minutes. Cutting 30 mins from a journey from Cardiff to Newcastle is no great shakes, I'm not impressed or bothered when the overall cost to the ordinary passenger is astronomical.

I'm sorry about not understanding what question you've put to me. I hope you see that I'm not convinced that a few minutes saved is worth the cost. It's certainly not worth it to turn parts of the country into London commuter hubs.

 

[class26]

I must look up London - Birmignham airline prices.

(And besides, airline prices London - Scotland are generally cheaper than h train on a like for like basis, except walk up).

There are no flights between B`ham and any London airport simply because the distance is too small and slots at the only airports worth flying to ie Heathrow and to a lesser extent, Gatwick are expensive. The only use of such flights would be as connections into long haul flights and from Birmingham airport you can already do this with such airlines as Emirates, Qatar, Turkish etc not to mention KLM, Lufthansa, Swiss, Air France, SAS .............
There are plenty of flights between Birmingham and Scotland though.

 

[Ianno87]

The Ham, I have tried to understand the question put to me in your paragraph, but it's not phrased very clearly.

You reference the cost of tickets, then percentage of workers to London, then ask about Manchester, your home town, and your local station. I don't know where your town is, what your local station is, or what you're asking me to say.

I've never said that cuts in journey times aren't a "betterment". I just don't accept that it's necessary to spend 40bn on 10 minutes, or 15 minutes. Cutting 30 mins from a journey from Cardiff to Newcastle is no great shakes, I'm not impressed or bothered when the overall cost to the ordinary passenger is astronomical.

I'm sorry about not understanding what question you've put to me. I hope you see that I'm not convinced that a few minutes saved is worth the cost. It's certainly not worth it to turn parts of the country into London commuter hubs.

*Sigh*

Firstly, 30 minutes off Cardiff-Newcastle *is* significant. It makes businesses, universities etc. in one city better connected to businesses/universities in the other, and thus more likely to trade and grow as a result. It may make a day trip feasible where it is currently not (entirely possible for this flow).

In anycase, the £bns spent is buying far, far more than just journey times reductions.

It is making journeys that are hard to do today much easier (e.g. Heathrow to Wigam, Milton Keynes to Leeds changing at Birmingham Interchange, East Midlands to Newcastle etc.).

It is taking long distance trains off the existing network on the approaches to Manchester and Leeds meaning space for more local and regional trains.

It's putting areas of opportunity for economic activity 'on the map' with hugh quality transport infrastructure on the doorstep to make this economic activity happen (Airport City, Crewe Hub, East Midlands Hub, Old Oak Common).

If you're going to build a new line to achieve all these things, you might as well make it high speed for the relatively little extra cost this entails. HS2 is a normal railway like any other that just happens to be pretty quick.

I don't why any of the above are particularly hard concepts to grasp.

 

[The Ham]

Ok

The Ham, I have tried to understand the question put to me in your paragraph, but it's not phrased very clearly.

You reference the cost of tickets, then percentage of workers to London, then ask about Manchester, your home town, and your local station. I don't know where your town is, what your local station is, or what you're asking me to say.

I've never said that cuts in journey times aren't a "betterment". I just don't accept that it's necessary to spend 40bn on 10 minutes, or 15 minutes. Cutting 30 mins from a journey from Cardiff to Newcastle is no great shakes, I'm not impressed or bothered when the overall cost to the ordinary passenger is astronomical.

I'm sorry about not understanding what question you've put to me. I hope you see that I'm not convinced that a few minutes saved is worth the cost. It's certainly not worth it to turn parts of the country into London commuter hubs.

Ok, let's try again. My home town is with an hour of London in the southeast in prime commuter belt yet only 5-10% of people travel to London for work, why do you think that HS2 will make somewhere like Manchester (which will also be an hour from London after HS2) any different so that a lot more people will travel from there to London for work and result in Manchester being only a suburb of London?

It doesn't matter where I live, you could look at many places like Farnborough, Reading, Guildford, Brighton, Luton, Swindon, etc. where they all have sufficient numbers of business based there which are all within about an hour of London yet are their local hub towns and not just so people can get to London.

The reference to the cost of tickets is only to say that from my home town travel to London is currently a LOT less than from Manchester, and so unless HS2 results in significantly cheaper tickets then cost of travel from Manchester will be much higher and therefore likely be a barrier to many people choosing to do so.

How is HS2 going to be so different from the current rail lines from my home town that it will significantly change people that more than 5-10% of people will choose to use HS2 to go to London when my home town doesn't have the level of facilities that Manchester has (very few if any of the places I listed above have)?

What makes HS2 different in that regard?

What do you understand that we don't?

 

[HSTEd]

HS2 can move people cheaper, faster and more reliably than any railway in the UK is capable of today.

 

[PR1Berske]

HS2 can move people cheaper, faster and more reliably than any railway in the UK is capable of today.

When I make a statement against HS2, I am asked to back up my claim. Can you please back up this one?

 

[The Ham]

When I make a statement against HS2, I am asked to back up my claim. Can you please back up this one?

The things that sort this statement:
- HS2 trains can just be standard European trains, which because it is a larger market means that theres more competition and lower per train R&D costs (as more are sold). As such the trains are cheaper for the same sort of trains.
- HS2 will have 1 driver per train (which is always the case), Hoover that one driver will be able to drive 1,100 passengers seated compared with 800 seated on a class 80x (fewer on a 390 or HST), as such the driver cost per passenger cost will be lower.
- HS2 will be cheaper to build than widening an existing line (say the WCML) as it can pick where it runs to avoid going through costly towns and cities unless it is serving them. It also can be built much like any green field project and doesn't need to adhere to railway safety rules unless it is connecting to the existing network.
- there is less need to put on replacement bus services, either during construction or during operation. As there'll be less time needed to connect it into the existing network which means less disruption during construction to the existing line and that if the lines need to choose for maintenance there's still the original lines over which passengers can be diverted.

However you've been told all this before. Now what we haven't been told is an answer to the question that I've put to you. Which is how is HS2 so different that somewhere like Manchester will be massively impacted while many towns and cities within the Southeast of equal or less distance from London all manage to cope?

 

[Ianno87]

When I make a statement against HS2, I am asked to back up my claim. Can you please back up this one?

As well as what The Ham has said:

-It will be cheaper to operate than the exusting network by virtue of requiring fewer train sets to operate the same level of service (shorter end to end journey time = fewer trains needed to replicate the current Pendolino service)
-More weather resilient and reliable by having properly engineered earthworks from the state, not attempting to maintain a hotchpotch of Victorian legacy embankments and earthworks
-Easier (thus, in theory, cheaper) to maintain by having the ability to do so using modern techniques and standard kit designed in from the start unlike legacy infrastructure. And also not having to worry about keeping the railway open in the wee small hours for freight movements.

I hope we're going some way to winning you over on this one

 

[Deerfold]

When I make a statement against HS2, I am asked to back up my claim.

Although you seem to be ignoring all the recent questions put to you.

 

[PR1Berske]

The Ham, I will try to answer your question.

When HS2 is built, it will not go beyond Birmingham in its first phase. Any benefits, were any to exist, would not be seen in Manchester, or anywhere else North of Birmingham for that matter. Manchester will be treated differently, as I see it, for being isolated from London Euston's newest railway line.

But let's not forget the important truth. It's already possible to get from Manchester to London in a couple of hours: by the time HS2 arrives, it'll provide a 10 minute reduction in journey time for £40bn: this impacts Manchester because a lot more good could be done by investing directly into Manchester *now* rather than waiting for HS2.

I believe Manchester should have P15/16 built *now* , which will be a positive impact , rather than waiting years for HS2 into Euston.

I'll also answer you in the context of business and the local economy. You can already get a fast, cheap, and direct train into London from Manchester, so HS2 doesn't improve the Manchester economy by a brass penny. You can already fly into at least two London airports from Manchester, quickly and efficiently, so HS2 doesn't provide a credible alternative for people, as options already exist, and exist without billions being spent on new infrastructure.

Manchester's Universities are already linked, by broadband internet, to institutions around the world. They are an important factor in the local economy. They don't need another railway into London, they need investment in technology and broadband.

Manchester could be worse off, I believe, if the brand new railway line into London directs investment into London because Manchester is not available via HS2. There could be the view that London has become even easier to get to, easier to invest in, because the new sexy fast HS2 line stops at Birmingham.

I believe Manchester will suffer if money continued to flow into London Euston, which is why the project needs to be scrapped. If it was about making the North the "place to be", the line would have been started at Piccadilly and gone south, instead it starts at Euston and , supposedly, works North.

I'm going to probably stay away from this forum for a while after this. I'm wholly against HS2, and will never ever use HS2, will never accept it. Some/most of you approve of it. This means that this discuss won't move on. I'll be against forever, you will be in support forever. We'll just go around in circles.

I will try to respond if I need to, but I'm aware that we could all end up repeating ourselves if we carry on. I just know that there will never be a time when I'll ever use HS2, and hope more people from the excluded, ignored regions join me in never accepting it.

 

[JamesT]

When HS2 is built, it will not go beyond Birmingham in its first phase. Any benefits, were any to exist, would not be seen in Manchester, or anywhere else North of Birmingham for that matter. Manchester will be treated differently, as I see it, for being isolated from London Euston's newest railway line.

But let's not forget the important truth. It's already possible to get from Manchester to London in a couple of hours: by the time HS2 arrives, it'll provide a 10 minute reduction in journey time for £40bn: this impacts Manchester because a lot more good could be done by investing directly into Manchester *now* rather than waiting for HS2.

Cobblers.

The HS2 line might not be going beyond Birmingham in Phase 1, but the HS2 trains will be. There will be journey time improvements of nearly half an hour London - Manchester (2:08 for the usual trip versus 1:40 for Phase 1 HS2). Then that drops to 1:08 when the full Phase 2 is implemented. You will probably want to use the 2 hour journey achieved by a single train each day in one direction, but that's still a 20 minute reduction after Phase 1.

£42bn is also the cost of Phase 1 + Phase 2, if you think it's never going to get beyond Phase 1 then a figure of £22bn is more like it.

If you're going to try and argue against the project, using some accurate numbers might help.

 

[quantinghome]

I'm going to probably stay away from this forum for a while after this. I'm wholly against HS2, and will never ever use HS2, will never accept it. Some/most of you approve of it. This means that this discuss won't move on. I'll be against forever, you will be in support forever. We'll just go around in circles.

This saddens me as I like hearing opinions that differ to my own. I find it's a good discipline to have my views challenged. If they stand up to being tested, it strengthens my view. If a counterargument is thorough and well-evidenced then I need to think seriously about changing my mind.

When did we (humans in general) stop being open to considering contrary views on a subject? It seems we quickly form views on an issue, usually based on gut instinct, then hold tenaciously to it. Evidence is cherry picked and used as propaganda. Views only get changed when the counterpoint becomes so stark staringly obvious that we can't ignore it any longer.

I make the following suggestion to avoid this. Try and come up with the best argument you can for the view you oppose. Then get the 'opposition' to critique your argument.

 

[B&I]

The Ham, I will try to answer your question.

When HS2 is built, it will not go beyond Birmingham in its first phase. Any benefits, were any to exist, would not be seen in Manchester, or anywhere else North of Birmingham for that matter. Manchester will be treated differently, as I see it, for being isolated from London Euston's newest railway line.

But let's not forget the important truth. It's already possible to get from Manchester to London in a couple of hours: by the time HS2 arrives, it'll provide a 10 minute reduction in journey time for £40bn: this impacts Manchester because a lot more good could be done by investing directly into Manchester *now* rather than waiting for HS2.

I believe Manchester should have P15/16 built *now* , which will be a positive impact , rather than waiting years for HS2 into Euston.

I'll also answer you in the context of business and the local economy. You can already get a fast, cheap, and direct train into London from Manchester, so HS2 doesn't improve the Manchester economy by a brass penny. You can already fly into at least two London airports from Manchester, quickly and efficiently, so HS2 doesn't provide a credible alternative for people, as options already exist, and exist without billions being spent on new infrastructure.

Manchester's Universities are already linked, by broadband internet, to institutions around the world. They are an important factor in the local economy. They don't need another railway into London, they need investment in technology and broadband.

Manchester could be worse off, I believe, if the brand new railway line into London directs investment into London because Manchester is not available via HS2. There could be the view that London has become even easier to get to, easier to invest in, because the new sexy fast HS2 line stops at Birmingham.

I believe Manchester will suffer if money continued to flow into London Euston, which is why the project needs to be scrapped. If it was about making the North the "place to be", the line would have been started at Piccadilly and gone south, instead it starts at Euston and , supposedly, works North.

I'm going to probably stay away from this forum for a while after this. I'm wholly against HS2, and will never ever use HS2, will never accept it. Some/most of you approve of it. This means that this discuss won't move on. I'll be against forever, you will be in support forever. We'll just go around in circles.

I will try to respond if I need to, but I'm aware that we could all end up repeating ourselves if we carry on. I just know that there will never be a time when I'll ever use HS2, and hope more people from the excluded, ignored regions join me in never accepting it.

It is a fair point to ask why HS2 seems to be the only substantial investment of any sort in the pipeline for the north. Everything else is a bit make-do-and-mendy eg discontinuous electrification on an intercity mainline (let alone no promises whatsoever for a trans-north high speed line).

 

[The Ham]

The Ham, I will try to answer your question.

When HS2 is built, it will not go beyond Birmingham in its first phase. Any benefits, were any to exist, would not be seen in Manchester, or anywhere else North of Birmingham for that matter. Manchester will be treated differently, as I see it, for being isolated from London Euston's newest railway line.

But let's not forget the important truth. It's already possible to get from Manchester to London in a couple of hours: by the time HS2 arrives, it'll provide a 10 minute reduction in journey time for £40bn: this impacts Manchester because a lot more good could be done by investing directly into Manchester *now* rather than waiting for HS2.

I believe Manchester should have P15/16 built *now* , which will be a positive impact , rather than waiting years for HS2 into Euston.

I'll also answer you in the context of business and the local economy. You can already get a fast, cheap, and direct train into London from Manchester, so HS2 doesn't improve the Manchester economy by a brass penny. You can already fly into at least two London airports from Manchester, quickly and efficiently, so HS2 doesn't provide a credible alternative for people, as options already exist, and exist without billions being spent on new infrastructure.

Manchester's Universities are already linked, by broadband internet, to institutions around the world. They are an important factor in the local economy. They don't need another railway into London, they need investment in technology and broadband.

Manchester could be worse off, I believe, if the brand new railway line into London directs investment into London because Manchester is not available via HS2. There could be the view that London has become even easier to get to, easier to invest in, because the new sexy fast HS2 line stops at Birmingham.

I believe Manchester will suffer if money continued to flow into London Euston, which is why the project needs to be scrapped. If it was about making the North the "place to be", the line would have been started at Piccadilly and gone south, instead it starts at Euston and , supposedly, works North.

I'm going to probably stay away from this forum for a while after this. I'm wholly against HS2, and will never ever use HS2, will never accept it. Some/most of you approve of it. This means that this discuss won't move on. I'll be against forever, you will be in support forever. We'll just go around in circles.

I will try to respond if I need to, but I'm aware that we could all end up repeating ourselves if we carry on. I just know that there will never be a time when I'll ever use HS2, and hope more people from the excluded, ignored regions join me in never accepting it.

Thank you for your response. I, like others above, disagree with your view. However, that's not too say that I don't enjoy hearing others views and enjoy responding and presenting an argument for my view to people who have a different view to me. It also challenges my view and makes me test them to see if what I think is reasonable.

There's some on here who agree with me on some things but disagree on others, there's some who almost always seem to be on the other side of the fence and I'm yet to find anyone who agrees with on everything.

There's even some who agree with me on big topics (i.e. HS2) but we disagree on elements of those projects.

 

[Olaf]

It is difficult to find any accurate analysis of the potential impact with significant impact from various political agendas distorting both local and national analysis provided so far.

The impact of the new services will also be determined by the level of subsidy that will be available to bring prices down to the affordable levels of the classes and sectors that will potentially most benefit from the new services.

Class A segments will most like not be a user of significance; their travel requirements are typically between global cities. London is the premier global capital and does not have a peer within the UK or Europe.

The UK Cities that will be served by HS2 are all just about tier-2 cities at best. They may benefit from Class B/Cs commuting into London and looking at property in the key provincial centres. It is the property markets (and the sundry service sectors) that will also benefit from a broader focus of property investors/speculators from outside the UK.

Classes below B/C are are likely to be irregular users of the services based on pricing. Those classes may use the services due to improved accessibility to Entertainment facilities in London, and to a lesser extent in Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds etc. There may be some benefit from access to jobs in the larger conurbations but the extent will be a factor of ticket subsidy levels, distance (from home to station and route miles) and whether it would be a daily or weekly commute. The provincial cities on the HS2 routes are more likely to benefit from this, but the impact will be on other areas loosing jobs, businesses, services, and skills as a result.

Businesses may take into account proximity to HS2 provincial stations as an additional factor for relocation/set-up of new offices, but it would be only one of many considerations. It is hard to think of a specific business sectors that would find HS2 a critical consideration. It would be anticipated that HS2 will benefit provincial tourist attractions and related services - though the hotel sector may see some adjustment/rebalance of of bookings.

Most small businesses located near provincial HS2 stops would not benefit from increased access to skilled labour, and pricing would be prohibitive to unskilled workers without major subsidy of the services. Small businesses not located near provincial HS2 stations that are dependent on "footfall" will no doubt take a hit arising from the agglomeration effects.

The level of economic activity in the various sectors by the time the services are launched will also have an impact - we have a major global financial correction coming in the meantime that will leave a significant and long-lasting footprint.

 

[misterredmist]

I don't think HS2 would get off the ground if it did not benefit London. All those ideas of re-balancing the economy and helping growth in the regions became impossible many years ago as London became just too large an electro-magnet and swallowed up everything whole.....and the growth continues inexorably

 

[HSTEd]

It is difficult to find any accurate analysis of the potential impact with significant impact from various political agendas distorting both local and national analysis provided so far.

The impact of the new services will also be determined by the level of subsidy that will be available to bring prices down to the affordable levels of the classes and sectors that will potentially most benefit from the new services.
.

That depends on your perspective.
It is in the government's interests that all journeys that can be made by HS2 are, since HS2 will cost much less to run per passenger-km than a conventional train would.
So I expect HS2 to be priced to absolutely crush the long distance WCML/ECML/MML/Chiltern market.

The best way to reduce subsidies would be to pile it high and sell it cheap, since the largest fraction of the levelised cost will be capital expenditure on track and such.

 

[fowler9]

That depends on your perspective.
It is in the government's interests that all journeys that can be made by HS2 are, since HS2 will cost much less to run per passenger-km than a conventional train would.
So I expect HS2 to be priced to absolutely crush the long distance WCML/ECML/MML/Chiltern market.

The best way to reduce subsidies would be to pile it high and sell it cheap, since the largest fraction of the levelised cost will be capital expenditure on track and such.

You should go on The Apprentice.