TRANSPORT | High Speed Rail

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by Haydn1971

Not necessarily, some running costs are lower, power use may be higher, but more passengers per unit will undoubtably make the cost per passenger cheaper - the ultimate cost will of course depend on what the market will pay.



I'm a business traveller - why should I be more willing or able to pay a higher fare ?

It's simple really if you won't pay the higher fare you won't travel on it!

And in that case the thing isn't viable.

[ill tonkso]

Nope, that's the media justification. The real justification is that the WCML intercity services are growing way beyond what the line can take and it has no room for suburban train paths, desperately needed in the Midlands and North West.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

It's simple really if you won't pay the higher fare you won't travel on it!

And in that case the thing isn't viable.

Wrong again, the fast trains to Birmingham and Manchester will no longer run on the WCML. They are all moving to HS2. This isn't a complimentary service, it is a replacement.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

The justification looks even worse if you are not carrying fare paying passengers that are wanting to travel and pay a reasonable fare!

The cost is estimated at £33 billion or more this is not being spent so that granny can visit the grand kids. If that's all you want to achieve you don't need HS2.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

Most of the justification for building this is based upon time saving for business travelllers paying a very high fare. If you then start to offer cheap fares in "off-peak" periods and advance ticket sales the justification for building it starts to look less attractive.

Not to mention the revenue impact on non HSR trains.

But business travellers will continue paying rather high fares as they are now in fact. They will more likely pay a premium for a flexible any-time fare due to business nature and this segment of the market has a higher willingness to pay for a faster journey.

The business sector is limited and the rest of the seats need to be fill by the lower end of the market who will be more willing to use train-restricted Advance tickets or travel off-peak.

Something as fundamental as yield management and market segmentation wouldn't have been missed in the appraisal, so you can quite confidently put your worry about HS2 charging a ridiculous premium or not having a business case to bed.

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

The cost is estimated at £33 billion or more this is not being spent so that granny can visit the grand kids. If that's all you want to achieve you don't need HS2.

Doesn't matter. If a cheap fare bring in a positive marginal revenue, they'll do it. Business travellers will no doubt carry on paying through the nose for Anytime fares.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

Wrong again, the fast trains to Birmingham and Manchester will no longer run on the WCML. They are all moving to HS2. This isn't a complimentary service, it is a replacement.

I think you have missed the point.

If he won't pay to travel on HS2 if the fares are high he won't travel. Period.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

I think you have missed the point.

If he won't pay to travel on HS2 if the fares are high he won't travel. Period.

If the TOC has extra revenue to be made by offering a cheap fare why wouldn't it do it?

[ill tonkso]

They are already high though, the government can't really make them higher as the non-stop trains they are replacing will be removed. The major differences between prices will be peak/off-peak, as they are now.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

They are already high though, the government can't really make them higher as the non-stop trains they are replacing will be removed.

I'm fairly confident that off-peak and sea tickets will continue to be regulated. Anytime fares probably won't be regulated, again as present, but the only reason they are so high at the moment is because the TOCs can charge those prices as the trains are literally full to bursting point at peak times.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by NCT

If the TOC has extra revenue to be made by offering a cheap fare why wouldn't it do it?

That's what happens now.

And you don't need HS2 and £34 billion of investment just to repeat the same thing. My point is simply that HS2 is not needed.

Estimated capital and operating costs over a 60plus year period are now put at £59 billion and revenues at £33 billion a gap of £26 billion which the taxpayer will have to fund.

This is a bad deal.

[ill tonkso]

What do you propose to deal with the capacity issues then?

[WatcherZero]

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

That's what happens now.

And you don't need HS2 and £34 billion of investment just to repeat the same thing. My point is simply that HS2 is not needed.

Estimated capital and operating costs over a 60plus year period are now put at £59 billion and revenues at £33 billion a gap of £26 billion which the taxpayer will have to fund.

This is a bad deal.

And it will also generate 100,000 new jobs worth an extra £10bn per year to the exchequer.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by NCT

I'm fairly confident that off-peak and sea tickets will continue to be regulated. Anytime fares probably won't be regulated, again as present, but the only reason they are so high at the moment is because the TOCs can charge those prices as the trains are literally full to bursting point at peak times.

Independent market research by Customer Research Technology Limited confirms the RUS fIndings. The research reveals that the average loading across all peak trains (16.30 – 18.59) was 56% and loadings on the peak Manchester and Liverpool services were on average less than 45% full.

[John07]

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

That's what happens now.

And you don't need HS2 and £34 billion of investment just to repeat the same thing. My point is simply that HS2 is not needed.

Estimated capital and operating costs over a 60plus year period are now put at £59 billion and revenues at £33 billion a gap of £26 billion which the taxpayer will have to fund.

This is a bad deal.

My my; you do post a lot of incoherent rubbish.

You have not made one valid point beyond armwaving that undermines the case for HS2. You clearly would not recognise a Cost benefit Analysis if it hit you in the face.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

And it will also generate 100,000 new jobs worth an extra £10bn per year to the exchequer.

And you know full well that's a figure plucked from thin air.

They cannot predict next months economic situation or GDP accurately those numbers are as "dependable" as the long range weather forecast.

[Burlington Bolshevik]

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

That's what happens now.

And you don't need HS2 and £34 billion of investment just to repeat the same thing. My point is simply that HS2 is not needed.

Estimated capital and operating costs over a 60plus year period are now put at £59 billion and revenues at £33 billion a gap of £26 billion which the taxpayer will have to fund.

This is a bad deal.

So what would you recommend that the Government does to address the capacity issue on the NW/NE to London rail corridor?

[Haydn1971]

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

It's simple really if you won't pay the higher fare you won't travel on it!.

My job requires me to visit sites, whilst I can make some engineering assessments using Google Street View, but also need to make measurements on site, observe how traffic and people use a road that I'm looking to improve for a client, meet a client face to face to pour over a drawing I've prepared for them. I will still need to travel and the alternative wholly classic rail option won't exist in the form we have now. If I need to travel long distance, to a city served by HS2, my choice will be HS2, fly or drive - taking a stopper however cheap it is, will simply be too tedious and wasteful on my time, I'll arrive knackered by stopper or by driving, air might be an option, but I could still have a long transfer from my office in central Leeds (next to the planned New Street Station) to where ever I'm going to.

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

And in that case the thing isn't viable.

Life isn't so black and white... It's one massive range of grey shades...

[WatcherZero]

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

And you know full well that's a figure plucked from thin air.

Not really, HS2 will directly employ around 3,000 people thats 9,000 jobs created. 30,000 jobs will be created in secondary development office and business parks around the stations built by HS2 and its partners, thats another 90,000. During construction you will be employing tens of thousands.

Economic forecasting isnt plucking numbers from thin air.

Your like that person who commented on the Independent article today, 'I am a pensioner and wont be around when its completed, this makes it a complete waste of money (for him personally) and the project should therefore be blocked'.

Actually predicting next months GDP is very easy and economists are only ever a tenth of one percent out at that, even at three months out its pretty easy. It gets harder when your talking around 9 months and year or more predictions are usually pretty ropey. However HS2 economic case has nothing to do with predicting GDP, its like saying you should sell your fishing boat and retire now because you dont know what the catch will be in thirty years time. Totally meaningless to the discussion.

[TedStriker]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

What do you propose to deal with the capacity issues then?

Critics of HS2 never seem to be able to answer this kind of question.

[DiscoSteve]

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

Independent market research by Customer Research Technology Limited confirms the RUS fIndings. The research reveals that the average loading across all peak trains (16.30 – 18.59) was 56% and loadings on the peak Manchester and Liverpool services were on average less than 45% full.

Interesting how 56% equals almost EXACTLY to the 5 standard class carriages from a 9 carriage Pendolino - so for you and I, that means COMPLETELY FULL across peak and VERY NEARLY FULL on the Manchester/Liverpool services at peak... Thank you for providing the evidence to destroy your own case

EDIT: in the interests of fairness I pulled down Virgin's Seating Plan to understand exactly what the First/Standard Class split is and the 56% doesn't represent COMPLETELY FULL - it represents 84% FULL of Standard Class seats - even on a stretch Pendolino it represents 74% full. This equates to 48 spare seats (out of 294) ON AVERAGE on a standard Pendolino and 114 spare seats (out of 444) on a stretch Pendolino at peak time - it will only take around another 1000 people per day wanting to travel from Manchester to London (or vice versa) at peak on the train to bust the current capacity... 20 years is a long long time to wait crossing fingers hoping that won't happen...

Seating plan -> http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets...ating-plan.pdf