HS2 - Your ideal rolling stock

[Bletchleyite]

1+1 seating is a waste of valuable space, giving this is a high speed commuter service.

London to Scotland via HS2 is not any kind of commuter service.

As for 1+1, if you can charge more for it than the proportional increase based on the space it takes up, it's not anything of the sort.

Isn't it because there is less hassle to using the train than the plane, instead of seating?

That is one reason people use, but others certainly cite comfort, particularly in First Class (which can be very affordable by the use of Advances on long journeys).

 

[J-2739]

London to Scotland via HS2 is not any kind of commuter service.

As for 1+1, if you can charge more for it than the proportional increase based on the space it takes up, it's not anything of the sort.

Nah, I meant the main trunk lines between the capital and Birmingham, and also the branches to Man Picc and Leeds. Of course, the route to the Scotts is definately not close.

1+1 is just throwing away needed capacity in the bin. Only the rich tycoons will buy...!

That is one reason people use, but others certainly cite comfort, particularly in First Class (which can be very affordable by the use of Advances on long journeys).

First class will definitely not have 3+2 seats!

Overall comfort is likely to be a main focus of the new stock, but with even the middle seats, people will just gladly use them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nah, I meant the main trunk lines between the capital and Birmingham, and also the branches to Man Picc and Leeds. Of course, the route to the Scotts is definately not close.

1+1 is just throwing away needed capacity in the bin. Only the rich tycoons will buy...!

And if enough of them do and make it profitable, it could effectively subsidise economy class, like on planes.

Overall comfort is likely to be a main focus of the new stock, but with even the middle seats, people will just gladly use them.

They might use them, but nobody actually likes a middle seat.

 

[J-2739]

And if enough of them do and make it profitable, it could effectively subsidise economy class, like on planes.

I was only joking on that rich tycoon theory.

Even then though, would they catch the train, or hop onto their Tooraks instead?

They might use them, but nobody actually likes a middle seat.

That's all true, but people who deeply hate the two aside would probably avoid it anyway, while people travelling with groups will more likely sit on the 3 aside.

I remeber when I did swimming at primary. Everyone would want the 3+2 coaches to come!

 

[po8crg]

I think a good example for accomodation classes is the Frecciarossa in Italy.

Standard class:

Premium class:

Business class:

Executive class:

The Executive class is aimed at people who would otherwise travel airline first class or even netjets (time-share private jet) - people who actually own a private jet don't use trains.

I'm not sure I'd bother with both 2+2 classes - the only difference is the upholstery (and price and free coffee).

The executive class is a total of eight seats, taking up about half a carriage (the rest being the Business-class quiet car).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can see a case for two 2+2-seated classes - an economy class that is all airline seats and tight pitch (e.g. like the Pendolino or GWR high density HST), and a higher class that is still 2+2 but with generous pitch, good window alignment and a good mix of airline and table seats for only a little extra, perhaps also a gimmick to attract people like free tea, coffee and water. If there was such a thing I suspect I'd default to it. The kind of thing I'd envisage is a bit like the so-called 2+2 "First Class" on 350s.

Other way you could do it would be 2+1 but at Standard class spacing, like the Caledonian Sleeper seated coaches.

I believe VT nearly did this on the Voyagers, which is the reason there are 3 disabled bogs, one per class - there was going to be Standard (walk-up), First and "Virgin Value class". The latter was allegedly originally going to be 3+2!

 

[po8crg]

I like that suggestion for multiple 2+2 classes - the Frecciarossas are pretty generously spaced and all table seating (there's no airline in the whole train, unless you count the 1+1 as airline).

But a really-tight 2+2 and a more-generous 2+2 would get me to use the more-generous 2+2 as a default - I find first more expensive than I'm entirely happy with (though I'll use cheap First Advances when I get a chance) and standard usually too tight for comfort.

I think a tiny amount of 1+1 at a super-premium price of something like £500 for Manchester-London would make sense.

 

[nerd]

I like that suggestion for multiple 2+2 classes - the Frecciarossas are pretty generously spaced and all table seating (there's no airline in the whole train, unless you count the 1+1 as airline).

But a really-tight 2+2 and a more-generous 2+2 would get me to use the more-generous 2+2 as a default - I find first more expensive than I'm entirely happy with (though I'll use cheap First Advances when I get a chance) and standard usually too tight for comfort.

I think a tiny amount of 1+1 at a super-premium price of something like £500 for Manchester-London would make sense.

We know that the captive stock will provide approx 550 seats in a 200m standard unit. That implies a similar space standard to the class 395 Javelin units (340 seats in 120m length). Effectively, I think we may expect the classic-compatibles to be a lot like the Class 395s - just longer. But as the Class 395s show; people value improved speed far above seating space.

Of course the captive stock will be a bit wider; but then the Class 395 stock have no first class, restricted baggage space, no buffet, and limited lavs - and it will be the classic compatibles that will be used for the longer trips.

So I would expect the captive standard to be 2+2 in first class (probably with tables), and 3+2 in standard class. But still 550 seats overall.

Classic compatible maybe lose a few seats - allowing 1+2 in first class - but otherwise much as with the class 395s.

But the primary aim will be to provide lowest-cost high cpacity travel, with the space standards appropriate for that. This is not a premium railway - it will be marketed as being faster and cheaper than current trains, not as being more comfortable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do you think that? No high speed line across the world has taken that approach. All market speed as a premium factor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We know that the captive stock will provide approx 550 seats in a 200m standard unit. That implies a similar space standard to the class 395 Javelin units (340 seats in 120m length). Effectively, I think we may expect the classic-compatibles to be a lot like the Class 395s - just longer. But as the Class 395s show; people value improved speed far above seating space.

How did you get to that from the 395? Have you actually ever been on one? They are 2+2 and very comfortable - the interior resembles the 350/1 to some extent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tsangpogorge]

Could the original Eurostar e300 (class 373) stock be used for classic compatible services?

 

[The Planner]

Would be a laughing stock if they did that. They will be new trains.

 

[HSTEd]

Why do you think that? No high speed line across the world has taken that approach. All market speed as a premium factor.

Because a half empty railway will be a horifying embarassment for the government of the day.
And since the normal railways are even more of a subsidy junkie than high speed will be [thanks to high speeds lower cost base] it is in the state's interest to transfer as many classic passengers as possible to the high speed route.

 

[nerd]

Why do you think that? No high speed line across the world has taken that approach. All market speed as a premium factor.

The economic appraisal documentation is insistent that there will be no fare premium for travel on HS2. So we can expect nominal walk-up fares to be the same for classic as high speed travel.

however, the high speed services will have a lot of extra seats to fill - and as HSTEd points out, a far lower cost base per seat mile - so we can expect to see heavy discounting of advance and off-peak fares on high speed services.

The core point being that HSR is expected to be hugely profitable in operational terms; and the better they can fill the train-sets, the more the profit - and the more money that will be able to be returned to the Treasury to pay back constructions costs.

But any business with high fixed costs and high fixed capacity will maximise profit by cutting fares to the point where they fill the trains; and by maximising seating to make the most use of the fixed space available.

How did you get to that from the 395? Have you actually ever been on one? They are 2+2 and very comfortable - the interior resembles the 350/1 to some extent.

The 395 interior is indeed most comfortable; but with space standards much tighter than on most continental HSR units. Which is my point; if train cars are reasonably well designed, the quite tightly packed seating (2+2 classic-compatible; 3+2 captive) will be perfectly acceptable.

HSR is not a luxury product.

 

[Ayman Ilham]

For full high-speed services, I would love a Velaro type design, they look awesome! As for classic compatibles, then the ICE-T design seems to work!

 

[fowler9]

Regarding 3+2 seating. No way would I pay a premium to get from Birmingham to London half an hour quicker if I had to sit in the middle seat. I'll do it on a plane to save almost 2 days travel and an overnight stopover to get from the north west to central Europe.

 

[HSTEd]

Regarding 3+2 seating. No way would I pay a premium to get from Birmingham to London half an hour quicker if I had to sit in the middle seat. I'll do it on a plane to save almost 2 days travel and an overnight stopover to get from the north west to central Europe.

The point is there will be no premium.
The premium costs the government money because ICWC is a huge subsidy junkie and HS2 will cost less to run

 

[squizzler]

I like the idea of Talgo Avril which the company is proposing to build but have not seen how they intend to make this compatible with platform heights. I understand Talgo suspend the passenger compartment close to rail level (i.e. it is low floor by design) which seems inherently incompatible with the proposed HS2 platform height of 1115mm. Has anybody seen the Talgo proposals and is in a position to describe the arrangement?

 

[The Ham]

Regarding 3+2 seating. No way would I pay a premium to get from Birmingham to London half an hour quicker if I had to sit in the middle seat. I'll do it on a plane to save almost 2 days travel and an overnight stopover to get from the north west to central Europe.

There are a few things to think about, firstly the available seat width for 3+2 is wider than it is on the existing UK trains. As such it could be that the seats in the captive units are the same width as on existing trains like the 444's. For instance the 444's are 2.74m wide, if we assume that 1/5 of this is the width of a seat then that's 55cm. If we do the same for 3.05m wide train then (having divided it by 6) you get 51cm such is noticeably bigger than the 47cm you get when you do the same with a 450 (2.83m wide). Yes it's not quite as big as the 444's but it would be much more comfortable than "traditional" 3+2 seats in the UK.

By putting in perfectly fine seats in a 3+2 configuration you could have an extra 25% more seats, that means that there is the potential for the tickets to be cheaper than if they are in a 2+2 configuration. As such even IF there is a premium in using HS2 Vs the existing Virgin services the ability to fit more people on the train would reduce the cost back to at worst the existing level. However it could be enough to make the cost less.

 

[fowler9]

The point is there will be no premium.
The premium costs the government money because ICWC is a huge subsidy junkie and HS2 will cost less to run

If you think you aren't going to pay more than on the classic network then I fear you are going to be let down.

 

[fowler9]

There are a few things to think about, firstly the available seat width for 3+2 is wider than it is on the existing UK trains. As such it could be that the seats in the captive units are the same width as on existing trains like the 444's. For instance the 444's are 2.74m wide, if we assume that 1/5 of this is the width of a seat then that's 55cm. If we do the same for 3.05m wide train then (having divided it by 6) you get 51cm such is noticeably bigger than the 47cm you get when you do the same with a 450 (2.83m wide). Yes it's not quite as big as the 444's but it would be much more comfortable than "traditional" 3+2 seats in the UK.

By putting in perfectly fine seats in a 3+2 configuration you could have an extra 25% more seats, that means that there is the potential for the tickets to be cheaper than if they are in a 2+2 configuration. As such even IF there is a premium in using HS2 Vs the existing Virgin services the ability to fit more people on the train would reduce the cost back to at worst the existing level. However it could be enough to make the cost less.

Not arguing that the seats won't be as wide or wider. Just saying I am not going to pay more money to sit between two strangers. No window seat and no easy access to the aisle/bog.

Again do you honestly reckon that HS2 is not going to cost more to travel on than the old network?

 

[HSTEd]

If you think you aren't going to pay more than on the classic network then I fear you are going to be let down.

The whole point is that people use HS2 instead of the classic network, the state will not permit anything that diverts HS2 passengers to the classic trains that cost it far mroe money per seat-km.

Additionally suppressing demand on HS2 makes the government look bad.

ICWCs main service patterns on the WCML will be annihilated.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of the Pendo fleet is sent to XC or similar and the primary service is in the hands of super-350s.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The whole point is that people use HS2 instead of the classic network, the state will not permit anything that diverts HS2 passengers to the classic trains that cost it far mroe money per seat-km.

Additionally suppressing demand on HS2 makes the government look bad.

ICWCs main service patterns on the WCML will be annihilated.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of the Pendo fleet is sent to XC or similar and the primary service is in the hands of super-350s.

By the time HS2 is done, the Pendos will be over 20 years old. They'll probably be allowed to live out their days on the WCML. But will probably be treated to maintenance that was similar to that VT gave the Mk2 and Mk3 sets it had when it took over the WCML.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What's the maximum design speed of the 800s design? Could a build of 800s be used by with motor ratings and gearing to suit the higher speeds of HS2?

 

[Roast Veg]

What's the maximum design speed of the 800s design? Could a build of 800s be used by with motor ratings and gearing to suit the higher speeds of HS2?

Hitachi are proposing AT400s rather than AT300s (800/801/802) for HS2. The class 800 itself has a design speed of 140mph (225kph).

 

[The Ham]

Not arguing that the seats won't be as wide or wider. Just saying I am not going to pay more money to sit between two strangers. No window seat and no easy access to the aisle/bog.

Again do you honestly reckon that HS2 is not going to cost more to travel on than the old network?

The business case for HS2 is based on a number of facts these include that passenger growth between 2009 and the opening of phase 2 runs at 2.5% as well as the ticket price being the same as the classic network.

That means that as long as passenger numbers hit 152 passengers in 2026 for every 100 passengers in 2009 and that by 2033 it reaches 180 for every 100 in 2009 then the will be no need for HS2 to charge more per passenger than the classic network.

Based on 2.5% growth we should be at 119 by the end of 2016 (the last year we have data for), yet we are at 136, which we shouldn't have been reaching until 2021.

In fact the 2.5% growth figure had only not been exceeded twice since 2004/05 once it was 2.47 and the other was a small negative growth in 2009/10 when the credit crunch was at it's peak. To take things further rail growth has only been less that 5% a further 3 times in that 11 year period, and two of those it was 4.5% and 4.8%.

Now if we assume that growth for the next 10 years of data goes up at an average of 3.8% then by 2026 there would be more than 180 passengers for every 100 in 2009, yet the model wasn't anticipating that until phase two opens, not when phase one is open!

Now because there would be 17.6% more passengers than expected to make the same amount of income then ticket prices could all be discounted to 85% of their current value.

If however we assume that over the next 10 years of data passenger growth is higher then the ticket prices could go lower. If passenger growth is 5% that would put us at 199 passengers in 2026 for every 100 in 2009. That would mean that ticket costs could fall to 77% of their current value to still generate the same income.

Now, if ticket prices are reduced by those sorts of values it is going to do two things, firstly it will attract lots more passengers, allowing ticket prices to at least stannate or potentially fall a bit more. Secondly it would mean that people would likely be willing to sit in the middle seat as they may be paying less for their journey than if they took a LM or Chiltern train but would be getting there significantly quicker.

 

[The Ham]

By the time HS2 is done, the Pendos will be over 20 years old. They'll probably be allowed to live out their days on the WCML. But will probably be treated to maintenance that was similar to that VT gave the Mk2 and Mk3 sets it had when it took over the WCML.

Personally I think that the WCML may see a few more LM (long distance) and XC but most of the paths freed up by HS2 will be used by local services. That would mean more capacity (at the southern end) for services that run between MK or Tring to London.

The same will happen around Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds (which is why it is likely that although there could be works to outer areas to improve capacity there's unlikely to be a "Crossrail" type development) meaning that post HS2 there could be scope for several new services an hour. Add to that some extra other improvement works and you could introduce a timetable for cross city services that people think about when suggesting Crossrail for whichever city.

 

[175mph]

Anything double decker would be my ideal rolling stock.