What if...HS2 is scrapped?

[Bald Rick]

No subsidy to the ROSCOs, TOCs or purchasing trains there. It's an estimate that given a requirement for different trains the ROSCO's leasing charges will be 250million over the length of an existing franchise.

Some franchises would absorb that, most - the ones which are subsidised - won't.

Again, whether you agree with this system or not - I don't - it's what we have and why we have so many new trains with no huge immediate bill.

Building HS2 is, again, different. It's immediate direct expenditure.

This is immediate direct expenditure. Indeed it being spent now.

That letter says that the provision of the new stock will cost an extra £250m in leasing costs over the life of the franchise. That is an extra £250m direct subsidy, being paid by government, and it is being spent now, today.

No franchise will swallow £250m. Even a franchise paying huge premiums wouldn’t. They would just pay the government £250m less. The effect is the same, the government has £250m less in its bank account.

Now you could argue that it’s worth it. But by the standard socio-economic appraisal methodology that government use, it isn’t. But HS2 is.

Of course you could argue that the standard appraisal methodology is wrong. The counter argument is that it is far better than what preceded it (which was to only consider financial implications, not socio economic factors), and that despite 20 years of refinement, backed by research by some extrao4dinarily intelligent people, no one has come up with anything better.

 

[Ken H]

To be fair I think you need to give him time to reply, and that's if he wants to!

I will though. What subsidies were given for purchasing those trains? Are they not leased by ROSCOs who purchased them without subsidies?

Surely, whether you agree with the rail franchise system or not, that's how it works?

HS2 is directly funded by tax. All subsidy.

and we must remember these subsidies come from the taxpayer. from the income tax and NI we all pay.

 

[Ken H]

This is immediate direct expenditure. Indeed it being spent now.

That letter says that the provision of the new stock will cost an extra £250m in leasing costs over the life of the franchise. That is an extra £250m direct subsidy, being paid by government, and it is being spent now, today.

No franchise will swallow £250m. Even a franchise paying huge premiums wouldn’t. They would just pay the government £250m less. The effect is the same, the government has £250m less in its bank account.

Now you could argue that it’s worth it. But by the standard socio-economic appraisal methodology that government use, it isn’t. But HS2 is.

Of course you could argue that the standard appraisal methodology is wrong. The counter argument is that it is far better than what preceded it (which was to only consider financial implications, not socio economic factors), and that despite 20 years of refinement, backed by research by some extrao4dinarily intelligent people, no one has come up with anything better.

Maybe the problem here is that new trains are so expensive. Other european railways tend to use a loco, trailers and a driving trailer arrangement. All the expensive bits in one unit, and relatively cheap trailers. And you can add in extra vehicles if you want. Yes I know all axles motored is good for acceleration and adhesion, but at what cost?

 

[The Ham]

and we must remember these subsidies come from the taxpayer. from the income tax and NI we all pay.

The current subsidy for the running of the rail network when you exclude Enhancements being made and spending on HS2 is about £250 million a year.

Given there's ~30 million tax payers that's ~£8 per person per year.

I would suggest that's a small price to pay to keep 1.7 billion trips off the road network.

Although there's investment in enhancements and HS2, costing ~£6bn last year, they should reduce costs and/or increase income. This then could lead to the government reducing an income from running the railways at some point.

 

[The Ham]

Maybe the problem here is that new trains are so expensive. Other european railways tend to use a loco, trailers and a driving trailer arrangement. All the expensive bits in one unit, and relatively cheap trailers. And you can add in extra vehicles if you want. Yes I know all axles motored is good for acceleration and adhesion, but at what cost?

That's fine until you get to maximum train lengths and then MU's give you an extra up to 140 seats per unit (assuming 70 seats per coach replacing the loco and DVT).

If we assume 4 return runs with 50 extra tickets per run at £5 per ticket over 250 days a year that's an extra £250,000 a year, over a 30 year lifespan that's £7.5 million in extra revenue to cover extra costs.

 

[Peter Kelford]

HS2 is the sort of thing that works in many places but not the UK. 85 miles of track lies between Coventry and London, with around 100 miles between Birmingham and London. Members will know that the world's longest bridge is 100 miles long, so perhaps 2 tracks on top of the existing 4 or 6 tracks may be in order for non-stop services? It is, however, noted that this won't happen in the UK nor will it be cheap, especially in the UK.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

HS2 is the sort of thing that works in many places but not the UK. 85 miles of track lies between Coventry and London, with around 100 miles between Birmingham and London. Members will know that the world's longest bridge is 100 miles long, so perhaps 2 tracks on top of the existing 4 or 6 tracks may be in order for non-stop services? It is, however, noted that this won't happen in the UK nor will it be cheap, especially in the UK.

I would have thought that, entirely ignoring the massive disruption this would cause to the WCML (if you think WCRM was bad, try this!), this would cost far more than HS2 and would simply result in the same capacity outcome whilst meaning a delay of numerous years. And what would you do about tunnels? There are several of these between London and Birmingham - are you going to demolish the old ones and start anew?

 

[The Ham]

HS2 is the sort of thing that works in many places but not the UK. 85 miles of track lies between Coventry and London, with around 100 miles between Birmingham and London. Members will know that the world's longest bridge is 100 miles long, so perhaps 2 tracks on top of the existing 4 or 6 tracks may be in order for non-stop services? It is, however, noted that this won't happen in the UK nor will it be cheap, especially in the UK.

Firstly, why doesn't creating a pair of extra tracks would work in the UK?

Secondly do you know how much bridges cost and therefore how much a 100 mile bridge would cost?

Finally this new bridge would likely have to run at about 12m advice the existing track so as to allow for any over bridges, at a quick count there's about a dozen over bridges just passing through Milton Keynes.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Firstly, why doesn't creating a pair of extra tracks would work in the UK?

Secondly do you know how much bridges cost and therefore how much a 100 mile bridge would cost?

Finally this new bridge would likely have to run at about 12m advice the existing track so as to allow for any over bridges, at a quick count there's about a dozen over bridges just passing through Milton Keynes.

Obviously the idea doesn't work in the UK. The UK is trapped (for the moment) in the 20th century while the rest of the world embraces passing the 1/5 mark of the 21st. If the UK was a normal country in terms of technology and development, the government would either not bother with this sort of vanity project or actually get HS2 over and done with, before HS3, HS4 and HS5 come along.
*Italy, Germany, Spain, Poland, Ireland, Australia, USA, Canada etc.

 

[The Ham]

Obviously the idea doesn't work in the UK. The UK is trapped (for the moment) in the 20th century while the rest of the world embraces passing the 1/5 mark of the 21st. If the UK was a normal country in terms of technology and development, the government would either not bother with this sort of vanity project or actually get HS2 over and done with, before HS3, HS4 and HS5 come along.
*Italy, Germany, Spain, Poland, Ireland, Australia, USA, Canada etc.

The reason it doesn't work in the UK isn't obvious to everyone, and I don't recall if you have said so before, as such can you please clarify.

Although I do agree that we should get on with it, given that HS2 was justified on rail growth hitting 50% at opening of Phase 1 and currently those regions which benefit most from phase 1 have (between 2008/09 and 2017/18) seen growth of 70%. If something was justified at 50% growth and we've seen 70% then I don't understand how people can justify cancelling it.

 

[Peter Kelford]

The reason it doesn't work in the UK isn't obvious to everyone, and I don't recall if you have said so before, as such can you please clarify.

Although I do agree that we should get on with it, given that HS2 was justified on rail growth hitting 50% at opening of Phase 1 and currently those regions which benefit most from phase 1 have (between 2008/09 and 2017/18) seen growth of 70%. If something was justified at 50% growth and we've seen 70% then I don't understand how people can justify cancelling it.

1. The government is just concerned with vanity rather than utility
2. The UK's cost efficiency is low - even quoted prices can be high.
3. There's a large group of 'Anti-Rail' campaigners who have the ability to persuade a larger number of people to block rail compared to other countries
4. The first 'proper' HS line usually leads to unforseen benefits.
5. There's very strong pressure to ensure that the line makes a healthy profit and repays the cost - which is bloated.
6. The UK has a bad track record when it comes to infrastructure. 1 or 2 cock-ups are 'normal', most projects being delayed and overpriced makes them unpopular, fuelling 3.

 

[The Ham]

1. The government is just concerned with vanity rather than utility
2. The UK's cost efficiency is low - even quoted prices can be high.
3. There's a large group of 'Anti-Rail' campaigners who have the ability to persuade a larger number of people to block rail compared to other countries
4. The first 'proper' HS line usually leads to unforseen benefits.
5. There's very strong pressure to ensure that the line makes a healthy profit and repays the cost - which is bloated.
6. The UK has a bad track record when it comes to infrastructure. 1 or 2 cock-ups are 'normal', most projects being delayed and overpriced makes them unpopular, fuelling 3.

Thank you, so little to do with the scheme, rather more to do with the way that our government is likely to implement it.

I would bet much agree with point 4, I wouldn't be surprised if once HS2 is built that there's going to be some surprising outcomes. There's going to be some which we can guess at, either because they are obvious (like getting between London and Birmingham) or because they make sense (like being able to get between stations near any two pairs of stations in HS2).

However there's a chance that there's flows which well also benefit which aren't immediately obvious. This could include people using HS2 to get between OOC & Euston as part of longer journeys.

 

[duffield]

Well, I suppose one way to suppress demand is to make travel more unpleasant ...

to expand on my previous post re 3+2 seating:

The anecdotal evidence seems to be that 3+2 seating doesn't necessarly allow more passengers, because
a) People will rather stand than sit in the middle seat of the 3
b) But there is less standing room due to the 3+2 seating.

I wonder if any studies have been done to provide hard evidence as to whether this is actually true?

 

[Bletchleyite]

to expand on my previous post re 3+2 seating:

The anecdotal evidence seems to be that 3+2 seating doesn't necessarly allow more passengers, because
a) People will rather stand than sit in the middle seat of the 3
b) But there is less standing room due to the 3+2 seating.

I wonder if any studies have been done to provide hard evidence as to whether this is actually true?

It's certainly my view that the S-stock layout is most effective - this has generous facing and side-facing seating for longer journeys, and standing for shorter ones.

Most notably Japan, the land of serious overcrowding, seems to have most of its trains set up with side-facing seating rather than 3+2.

 

[Peter Kelford]

It's certainly my view that the S-stock layout is most effective - this has generous facing and side-facing seating for longer journeys, and standing for shorter ones.

Most notably Japan, the land of serious overcrowding, seems to have most of its trains set up with side-facing seating rather than 3+2.

That quite true, but not very good for meals or laptops as desired by long-distance travellers. Maybe an 'internet lounge' area might be in order next to the bar/café/buffet where non-first class passengers can sit down to have a proper meal or use the internet for more extensive purposes?

 

[kilonewton]

Obviously the idea doesn't work in the UK. The UK is trapped (for the moment) in the 20th century while the rest of the world embraces passing the 1/5 mark of the 21st. If the UK was a normal country in terms of technology and development, the government would either not bother with this sort of vanity project or actually get HS2 over and done with, before HS3, HS4 and HS5 come along.
*Italy, Germany, Spain, Poland, Ireland, Australia, USA, Canada etc.

Really? Your list of countries embracing 21st century technology needs further investigation. Maybe in some areas, but not in rail, particularly the non European countries.
Take Australia for example. In 2001-2005, the Victorian state Government dragged a 19th Century Railway into the 20th Century, raising speeds to 160km/h and removing manual signalling. Check the years again...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really? Your list of countries embracing 21st century technology needs further investigation. Maybe in some areas, but not in rail, particularly the non European countries.
Take Australia for example. In 2001-2005, the Victorian state Government dragged a 19th Century Railway into the 20th Century, raising speeds to 160km/h and removing manual signalling. Check the years again...

And suggesting that the USA and Canada are at the forefront of anything to do with rail (other than cuts and closure programmes) is beyond comical.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Really? Your list of countries embracing 21st century technology needs further investigation. Maybe in some areas, but not in rail, particularly the non European countries.
Take Australia for example. In 2001-2005, the Victorian state Government dragged a 19th Century Railway into the 20th Century, raising speeds to 160km/h and removing manual signalling. Check the years again...

And suggesting that the USA and Canada are at the forefront of anything to do with rail (other than cuts and closure programmes) is beyond comical.

If you look carefully, I have included two types of country. One type actually aims to be at the forefront of rail technology whilst another type isn't and doesn't claim to be. Canada, US and Australia are examples of the latter. They do not attempt to claim that they are 'leaders in rail technology'. The UK claims/tries to claim that it has excellent rail facilities when it's actually somewhere in the middle.

 

[kilonewton]

If you look carefully, I have included two types of country. One type actually aims to be at the forefront of rail technology whilst another type isn't and doesn't claim to be. Canada, US and Australia are examples of the latter. They do not attempt to claim that they are 'leaders in rail technology'. The UK claims/tries to claim that it has excellent rail facilities when it's actually somewhere in the middle.

Helps if you actually define that when you make the list. Less confusion that way.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Obviously the idea doesn't work in the UK. The UK is trapped (for the moment) in the 20th century while the rest of the world embraces passing the 1/5 mark of the 21st. If the UK was a normal country in terms of technology and development, the government would either not bother with this sort of vanity project or actually get HS2 over and done with, before HS3, HS4 and HS5 come along.
*Italy, Germany, Spain, Poland, Ireland, Australia, USA, Canada etc.

Helps if you actually define that when you make the list. Less confusion that way.

I think that defines both types of country.

 

[Esker-pades]

If HS2 is scrapped, existing trains will get more and more crowded. Patch-up solutions will only do so much.

 

[Ken H]

If HS2 is scrapped, existing trains will get more and more crowded. Patch-up solutions will only do so much.

or maybe the growth will peak. More working from home, video conferencing etc.

I used to train into the office every day. then I got sick last may and the commute wasnt possible for me. They still wanted my work, so they sorted working from home for me. I do my computer work, attend meetings (using Skype) etc with no worries via a VPN connection. If employers could be sure staff were not skiving then this would be more common. A project manager who lives 2 doors away works 80% from home also.
home working and video conferencing will surely knock the demand off travel.

 

[Esker-pades]

or maybe the growth will peak. More working from home, video conferencing etc.

I used to train into the office every day. then I got sick last may and the commute wasnt possible for me. They still wanted my work, so they sorted working from home for me. I do my computer work, attend meetings (using Skype) etc with no worries via a VPN connection. If employers could be sure staff were not skiving then this would be more common. A project manager who lives 2 doors away works 80% from home also.
home working and video conferencing will surely knock the demand off travel.

Not everyone is a commuter.
Continued population growth more than negates the people not travelling due to working from home.

 

[Ken H]

Not everyone is a commuter.
Continued population growth more than negates the people not travelling due to working from home.

but video conferencing could kill off business travel.

 

[Esker-pades]

but video conferencing could kill off business travel.

I refer you to my comment about population growth.

 

[The Ham]

or maybe the growth will peak. More working from home, video conferencing etc.

I used to train into the office every day. then I got sick last may and the commute wasnt possible for me. They still wanted my work, so they sorted working from home for me. I do my computer work, attend meetings (using Skype) etc with no worries via a VPN connection. If employers could be sure staff were not skiving then this would be more common. A project manager who lives 2 doors away works 80% from home also.
home working and video conferencing will surely knock the demand off travel.

I know someone who works with chemicals in a lab, they can't work from home as they have 3 small children!

Likewise there's not space in my house for an office, so any working from home wouldn't be practical the days when my wife is home with our children.

NHS workers, shop staff, etc. all can't work from home.

Yes technology will reduce the need to travel, as is shown by the number of trips per person we're making, however with population growth the overall numbers of trips the country is making has gone up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If HS2 is scrapped, existing trains will get more and more crowded. Patch-up solutions will only do so much.

If it is scrapped, there will have to be a stock order, probably tilting, to boost existing WCML capacity. Tilting 125mph units for LNR may also make sense to eke out some extra capacity by having everything on the fast lines at 125.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I know someone who works with chemicals in a lab, they can't work from home as they have 3 small children!

Likewise there's not space in my house for an office, so any working from home wouldn't be practical the days when my wife is home with our children.

NHS workers, shop staff, etc. all can't work from home.

Yes technology will reduce the need to travel, as is shown by the number of trips per person we're making, however with population growth the overall numbers of trips the country is making has gone up.

What about the fact that the nurses, shop staff etc. will actually start to leave the country because of Brexit. Also, online shopping will reduce the need for shop staff, robots will take over warehouse work, algorithims will be able to diagnose, prescribe and dispense medicines etc.

 

[The Ham]

If it is scrapped, there will have to be a stock order, probably tilting, to boost existing WCML capacity. Tilting 125mph units for LNR may also make sense to eke out some extra capacity by having everything on the fast lines at 125.

My guess would be something along the lines of, move the 390's from ICWC to LNR
- shorten the 9 coach units to make 22 *6 coach units
- lengthen the 11 coach units to make 35*12 coach units
(Yes that does mean a load, ~30, of extra coaches left over. However it removes the need for a 3rd transformer to be provided do anything longer than 10 coaches)

New build of tilting trains for ICWC with 90mph diesel capability for running away from the wires, with a mix of 12/6 coach unit lengths.

That would give an increase in capacity of between 10% and 45% per train, however the smaller increase would be on the busiest services.

There could be scope for a bit of a capacity increase through a few extra services.

It should be noted that there'd still be a lot of investment needed to allow 12 coach units across the network.

 

[The Ham]

What about the fact that the nurses, shop staff etc. will actually start to leave the country because of Brexit. Also, online shopping will reduce the need for shop staff, robots will take over warehouse work, algorithims will be able to diagnose, prescribe and dispense medicines etc.

Again it's reducing the need to travel, but Manchester to Birmingham, Leeds to Birmingham and Scotland to London aren't typically related to commuting flows, so are unlikely to be significantly impacted by work technology.