Why is HS2 treated so differently by some Enthusiasts?

[Envy123]

As I have said previously, I'm not certain that HS2 season tickets will be regulated, just as Eurostar season tickets are not regulated (in that they don't exist). When a new market is created, there are no existing customers who need "protecting", unlike when BR was privatised.

That being said, if the long distance WCML service is decimated such that WCML services are no longer suitable for commuting from Crewe / Stoke / Stafford / Coventry / etc, it would not be appropriate for HS2 season tickets from these stations to be unregulated.

People do commute daily from Birmingham to London, though, in the hundreds if not the thousands. That is one set of customers that would need to be "protected".

Also, bearing in mind that HS2 will also allow people in London to feasibly work in other cities, so businesses can base themselves up north and still attract a large labor pool. This does assume non-extortionate fares, though.

HS2 can kickstart spreading the wealth and jobs across England, but if fares aren't extortionate and the new housing is affordable (among other factors).

 

[Voglitz]

People do commute daily from Birmingham to London, though, in the hundreds if not the thousands. That is one set of customers that would need to be "protected".

"Protected"? What does that mean? Why do they need protection?

Also, bearing in mind that HS2 will also allow people in London to feasibly work in other cities, so businesses can base themselves up north and still attract a large labor pool. This does assume non-extortionate fares, though.

Not really. The daily travelling time from London suburbs would be too long.

HS2 can kickstart spreading the wealth and jobs across England, but if fares aren't extortionate and the new housing is affordable (among other factors).

Did HS1 kickstart spreading the wealth and jobs across southern England?

 

[Jordeh]

Did HS1 kickstart spreading the wealth and jobs across southern England?

I'd be very surprised if Stratford, Ebbsfleet, Ashford and all the other places served by Southeastern's high-speed services haven't experienced a boost to the local economy and an increase in house prices. There's many places in Kent now where it's feasible to commute to London every day whereas previously it would have taken too long.

No doubt it's been a boost to the people and businesses of London, Brussels and Paris too.

 

[Voglitz]

I'd be very surprised if Stratford, Ebbsfleet, Ashford and all the other places served by Southeastern's high-speed services haven't experienced a boost to the local economy and an increase in house prices. There's many places in Kent now where it's feasible to commute to London every day whereas previously it would have taken too long.

Which places in Kent are commutable that weren't before? How many people commute from them?

No doubt it's been a boost to the people and businesses of London, Brussels and Paris too.

No doubt? The vast majority of people in those cities hardly ever, or never, use HS1.

 

[Jordeh]

Which places in Kent are commutable that weren't before? How many people commute from them?

There are numerous places in eastern Kent that had journeys well over an hour into London before Southeastern High Speed 1 services, these journey times have been reduced significantly and have encouraged more journeys. Ask yourself why Hastings is so desperate to be added to the HS1 services.

No doubt? The vast majority of people in those cities hardly ever, or never, use HS1.

I didn't say everyone in London, Brussels and Paris uses HS1. Are you refuting that it has been a benefit to London, Brussels and Paris?

Seems to me that you are dogmatically against all high speed rail. I implore you to look at the many countries which have successfully implemented high speed rail and you will see they have been beneficial for all destinations served by high speed rail.

 

[Voglitz]

There are numerous places in eastern Kent that had journeys well over an hour into London before Southeastern High Speed 1 services, these journey times have been reduced significantly and have encouraged more journeys.

Surely, there are numerous places in eastern Kent that had journeys well over an hour into London after Southeastern High Speed 1 services, like Ramsgate.

Ask yourself why Hastings is so desperate to be added to the HS1 services.

I haven't seen any opinion polls showing 'HS1 desperation' in Hastings. Most people probably work within a 10-mile radius of the town.

Seems to me that you are dogmatically against all high speed rail. I implore you to look at the many countries which have successfully implemented high speed rail and you will see they have been beneficial for all destinations served by high speed rail.

The evidence is somewhat lacking. Doncaster, Lille, and Coventry have had fast trains to London for years, but could hardly be described as boom towns.

 

[Jordeh]

Surely, there are numerous places in eastern Kent that had journeys well over an hour into London after Southeastern High Speed 1 services, like Ramsgate.

I see you're trying to deflect from the point again.

That doesn't detract from the point that many places in eastern Kent have greatly improved journeys times to London. Improved journeys times lead to more people making journeys (and the aforementioned local economy boost etc).

I haven't seen any opinion polls showing 'HS1 desperation' in Hastings. Most people probably work within a 10-mile radius of the town.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34484668

The evidence is somewhat lacking. Doncaster, Lille, and Coventry have had fast trains to London for years, but could hardly be described as boom towns.

Doncaster has had relatively fast trains to London for over a century and has massively benefited from the railway. It certainly did boom when the East Coast Mainline was built!

Lille could very much be described as a success story in recent decades.

The evidence is somewhat lacking that fast journey times or High Speed Rail are bad things for the places they serve

 

[Envy123]

"Protected"? What does that mean? Why do they need protection?

"Protected", as in regulating the fares so that they aren't extortionate. Otherwise, the current Brum to London commuters would use the classic services instead of HS2.

Eurostar has the benefit of no competition to Lille and Paris, but HS2 will not have that same advantage to Brum.

Not really. The daily travelling time from London suburbs would be too long.

Plenty of people commute from London to Reading, Milton Keynes and Brighton, to name a few.

Reading wouldn't even be half the powerhouse it is today, if it wasn't for high-speed trains from London and the West Country.

Did HS1 kickstart spreading the wealth and jobs across southern England?

Yes, Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Rochester, to name a few. Margate is attracting priced-out Londoners, partly due to the high-speed rail link for commuting to London.

 

[Bald Rick]

Did HS1 kickstart spreading the wealth and jobs across southern England?

It certainly did. Ashford, Ramsgate, Canterbury, Whitstable, Margate etc have all seen a well above regional average boost to their economies, most obviously identified through house prices. There are developments in these and other towns on the routes served by HS1 services that would not have happened without it.

 

[fowler9]

It certainly did. Ashford, Ramsgate, Canterbury, Whitstable, Margate etc have all seen a well above regional average boost to their economies, most obviously identified through house prices. There are developments in these and other towns on the routes served by HS1 services that would not have happened without it.

Here is the problem. It has moved commuters further out from London and increased house prices. This is the concern of a lot of people about increasing the London commuter belt right up to Northern England using HS2. More people commuting to London, increased house prices and more people stuck in the North not being able to afford a house and only being able to get a crap service job.

 

[Bald Rick]

Here is the problem. It has moved commuters further out from London and increased house prices. This is the concern of a lot of people about increasing the London commuter belt right up to Northern England using HS2. More people commuting to London, increased house prices and more people stuck in the North not being able to afford a house and only being able to get a crap service job.

Alternatively, people moving out of London helped London house prices to be lower than they would otherwise have been, which in turn helped more people in London to be 'priced in' than they otherwise would have been.

And that people moving out further from London but earning London money meant that a much greater proportion of their disposable income was spent in these towns further out, helping to create jobs and spread the wealth.

Also there are plenty of 'service' jobs that are not crap.

 

[fowler9]

Alternatively, people moving out of London helped London house prices to be lower than they would otherwise have been, which in turn helped more people in London to be 'priced in' than they otherwise would have been.

And that people moving out further from London but earning London money meant that a much greater proportion of their disposable income was spent in these towns further out, helping to create jobs and spread the wealth.

Also there are plenty of 'service' jobs that are not crap.

Fair point.

 

[Envy123]

Alternatively, people moving out of London helped London house prices to be lower than they would otherwise have been, which in turn helped more people in London to be 'priced in' than they otherwise would have been.

And that people moving out further from London but earning London money meant that a much greater proportion of their disposable income was spent in these towns further out, helping to create jobs and spread the wealth.

Also there are plenty of 'service' jobs that are not crap.

You make a very good point about high speed rail stabilising London prices. A lot of people make the choice to move out of London and commute, and London being too expensive is one of the reasons but not the only one.

Sometimes it's seeking a greater quality of life like a lot of City workers I know did when they moved to places like Guildford or Norwich. Some people love the countryside of Somerset and the availability of fast trains to make daily commuting feasible, encouraged them to move.

High-speed rail enables more choice in where you live while still working daily in London.

The opposite situation happens in Moscow, where a lot of people have a countryside home and a city flat as train services are poor and driving daily is not feasible. But as train links are being invested in, people may find that they would only need the one home if they want the best of both worlds. So more Moscow properties would be sold or let out to people who want them.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Like many routes, there's evidence to suggest that average journey times have gone up with time, to the point that some of the HS1 services are only as fast as normal expresses were back then. This would suggest that the commutable distance hasn't actually increased to any great extent with HS1. What is more notable though is the reason why trains are now slower than they once were. The number of commuters at intermediate stops has increased, meaning that more trains call there, leading to longer overall journey times. The calculation of whether a train should stop is based upon whether the increase in revenue from having additional passengers balances out the reduction in revenue from having a longer journey time. Instead of allowing shorter commutes, the HS1 domestic services have just affected this equilibrium. Eventually, any time savings from HS1 are eaten away by additional calls at stations to gain more revenue. While journey times haven't gone down it does mean that more people are travelling, leading to greater economic activity and revenues for the operator.

 

[Voglitz]

It certainly did. Ashford, Ramsgate, Canterbury, Whitstable, Margate etc have all seen a well above regional average boost to their economies, most obviously identified through house prices. There are developments in these and other towns on the routes served by HS1 services that would not have happened without it.

I don't think you saying "It certainly did", counts as evidence.

 

[PR1Berske]

Like many routes, there's evidence to suggest that average journey times have gone up with time, to the point that some of the HS1 services are only as fast as normal expresses were back then. This would suggest that the commutable distance hasn't actually increased to any great extent with HS1. What is more notable though is the reason why trains are now slower than they once were. The number of commuters at intermediate stops has increased, meaning that more trains call there, leading to longer overall journey times. The calculation of whether a train should stop is based upon whether the increase in revenue from having additional passengers balances out the reduction in revenue from having a longer journey time. Instead of allowing shorter commutes, the HS1 domestic services have just affected this equilibrium. Eventually, any time savings from HS1 are eaten away by additional calls at stations to gain more revenue. While journey times haven't gone down it does mean that more people are travelling, leading to greater economic activity and revenues for the operator.

An important point. If HS2 is to genuinely connect people to places, then it must call at numerous stations. But if it calls to often, it won't be very "high speed" . So what loses? Connectivity or speed?

 

[Jordeh]

An important point. If HS2 is to genuinely connect people to places, then it must call at numerous stations. But if it calls to often, it won't be very "high speed" . So what loses? Connectivity or speed?

It 'genuinely' connects the biggest cities in the UK. It offers both connectivity AND speed.

 

[Envy123]

An important point. If HS2 is to genuinely connect people to places, then it must call at numerous stations. But if it calls to often, it won't be very "high speed" . So what loses? Connectivity or speed?

HS2 will have regional hubs like Toton, as well as city centre stations. So it will have both.

 

[Voglitz]

That doesn't detract from the point that many places in eastern Kent have greatly improved journeys times to London. Improved journeys times lead to more people making journeys (and the aforementioned local economy boost etc).

Not everyone would agree with you.

Lille could very much be described as a success story in recent decades.

I've been there. I wouldn't call Lille conurbation a success story.

 

[NotATrainspott]

An important point. If HS2 is to genuinely connect people to places, then it must call at numerous stations. But if it calls to often, it won't be very "high speed" . So what loses? Connectivity or speed?

The HS2 plans involve minimal additional calls en-route to the city centre destinations. The only slippage away from this concept has been in South Yorkshire where the Sheffield spur will include calls at Chesterfield. That extra call can be justified in similar terms to the extra HS1 calls - now that trains separate will terminate at Midland rather than running through at Meadowhall on the way to Leeds, the increase in revenue from an extra intermediate call is more than the loss from longer journey times.

This calculation has always been applied to the stopping patterns. For example, the main service at Birmingham Interchange will be the 3tph to Curzon Street, as slowing down the Birmingham service won't have as much of a negative effect as it would on other trains. The Scotland ones will always run as fast as they can because they're at the important tipping point where small changes in journey time lead to a major change in demand forecast.

 

[Voglitz]

This calculation has always been applied to the stopping patterns. For example, the main service at Birmingham Interchange will be the 3tph to Curzon Street, as slowing down the Birmingham service won't have as much of a negative effect as it would on other trains.

According to the November 2016 Y network modelled service, there wouldn't be 3tph at Birmingham Interchange to Curzon Street.

There's no sign of HS2 having much idea about revenue at particular stations. It's fingers in the air.

 

[Jordeh]

I've been there. I wouldn't call Lille conurbation a success story.

Lille used to be one of the most deprived parts of France after the decline of its manufacturing industry. The high-speed rail link has been the catalyst along with strong political leadership and central government funding that has led to significant regeneration in Lille. It's now got booming services and tourism sectors due to its transport links.

"Lille now boldly advertises itself as the third largest industrial area of France, with 15 headquarters of international organisations and 80 of the headquarters of businesses with over 500 employees, the 15th most important European metropolitan area, second highest region for foreign investment, and third for international commerce."
http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport71.pdf

Not bad I say.

 

[The Ham]

An important point. If HS2 is to genuinely connect people to places, then it must call at numerous stations. But if it calls to often, it won't be very "high speed" . So what loses? Connectivity or speed?

Services on HS2 are not going to stop at many stations, however there are a number of existing intercity services on the existing main lines where they only call at a few stations on some long distance services.

By removing services like the Flying Scotsman from the main lines it allows more semi fast, or even stopping, services to run. In doing so HS2 does improve speed (HS2 services) and connectivity (classic line services and HS2 services that run fast on HS2 then run semi fast on classic lines).

With the faster journey times, it could be quicker to get a local stopping service into Leeds and then catch a HS2 service to some where else rather than use an existing direct (possibly XC) service.

 

[furnessvale]

An important point. If HS2 is to genuinely connect people to places, then it must call at numerous stations. But if it calls to often, it won't be very "high speed" . So what loses? Connectivity or speed?

Every train does not have to call at every station.

French LGVs appear to have platforms en route on dynamic loops, which are served by "some" trains. I don't think that concept is being applied in the UK.

 

[quantinghome]

Every train does not have to call at every station.

French LGVs appear to have platforms en route on dynamic loops, which are served by "some" trains. I don't think that concept is being applied in the UK.

It is. All HS2 stations on the main line i.e. at Toton, Birmingham Interchange and I think at Old Oak common, have platforms on loops.

Where would you suggest we put additional stations? The French experience of sticking parkway stations in the middle of fields is something we should probably learn from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_TGV_Haute-Picardie

 

[D365]

It is. All HS2 stations on the main line i.e. at Toton, Birmingham Interchange and I think at Old Oak common, have platforms on loops.

Six platforms I believe, not sure if centre space is still being reserved for a HS2-HS1 link.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where would you suggest we put additional stations? The French experience of sticking parkway stations in the middle of fields is something we should probably learn from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_TGV_Haute-Picardie

Bit like the phenomenally successful[1] East Midlands Parkway?

Not sure that we are wedded to our voitures quite the same way as the French, and as such I think in the UK stations located in towns/cities or ones connected to them by other forms of public transport are likely to be more successful, if a little harder to build.

[1] Phenomenal success may be limited. E&OE.