HS2 - good for the provinces?

[Olaf]

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.

Yes, to a degree - they will still want to retain flexibility within the infrastructure and provide a base-line discount alternative - a tier somewhat similar to that performed by coach services now.

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.

Agreed, and that was the reasoning behind my proposal to have airline operators involved to develop the yield-management based model for ticket pricing - i.e. to run it as an equivalent to easyJet/RyanAir - however the base costs are far too high for that to work successfully.

 

[HSTEd]

Agreed, and that was the reasoning behind my proposal to have airline operators involved to develop the yield-management based model for ticket pricing - i.e. to run it as an equivalent to easyJet/RyanAir - however the base costs are far too high for that to work successfully.

The major base cost is one that is independent of whether services run or not though - we will already have built HS2 at that time.
So they will only have to cover minor costs such as rolling stock capital and operational costs.

Which will crush the WCML/MML/ECML/Chiltern on that basis.

The cheapest way to provide a discount 'base-line' alternative would likely be to run 3+2 interior stock all shacks on HS2.

 

[Olaf]

de-dupe.

 

[Olaf]

de-dupe

 

[Olaf]

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

A significant factor contributing to the go-ahead for HS2 was the associated investment in the construction industry over an extended period - think back to the timing of the go-ahead. It is also hoped to help us through the imminent financial correction.

Also; it is a useful tool, but cynicism without substance is just adulation of ignorance.

 

[Olaf]

The major base cost is one that is independent of whether services run or not though - we will already have built HS2 at that time.
So they will only have to cover minor costs such as rolling stock capital and operational costs.

That is not correct. Access charges will be involved as the means to providing return on capital for the infrastructure owners.

 

[Olaf]

The cheapest way to provide a discount 'base-line' alternative would likely be to run 3+2 interior stock all shacks on HS2.

Dual-deck vehicles would provide higher density on the captive services.

 

[HSTEd]

That is not correct. Access charges will be involved as the means to providing return on capital for the infrastructure owners.

This depends on the government's charging strategy - since almost all (if not all) services will be operated by franchised operators, the access charges simply reduce their premiums.
So they make little difference to the government benefiting from all long distance passengers that can be carried on HS2 being carried on H2.

Dual-deck vehicles would provide higher density on the captive services.

Not as high as dual-deck 3+2 though right?

Especially as captive diagram trains already won't have restaurant type services because they can't possible need them - probably something like the RMB on Norwich trains or the old Hull Trains turbostar settup.

 

[Olaf]

This depends on the government's charging strategy - since almost all (if not all) services will be operated by franchised operators, the access charges simply reduce their premiums.

The access charges determine the base-line costs for the operator and feed into models for predicted patronage.

There will be an agreed fixed percentage for the operator profit over and above the total cost of running the franchise. That in turn, in conjunction with the subsidy paid to the operators, feeds into the cost of the tickets to the end user.

On top of that, the base interest rates will be a factor taken into account in the setting of the access charges since the infrastructure investment pricing will follow UK Gilts. Eventual cost is estimated considerably higher than the figures that have been published so far - it is past the GBP 100 Billion level now.

So all in all, without significant write-offs and subsidies, the ticket prices are going to be rather higher than most will be anticipating and will thus determine the pattern of usage by the various classes.

 

[HSTEd]

The access charges determine the base-line costs for the operator and feed into models for predicted patronage.

There will be an agreed fixed percentage for the operator profit over and above the total cost of running the franchise. That in turn, in conjunction with the subsidy paid to the operators, feeds into the cost of the tickets to the end user.

On top of that, the base interest rates will be a factor taken into account in the setting of the access charges since the infrastructure investment pricing will follow UK Gilts. Eventual cost is estimated considerably higher than the figures that have been published so far - it is past the GBP 100 Billion level now.

So all in all, without significant write-offs and subsidies, the ticket prices are going to be rather higher than most will be anticipating and will thus determine the pattern of usage by the various classes.

The optimum strategy for the infrastructure operator is to set charges at a level that will maximise revenue, you have to hit the top of the Laffer Curve.
This value is almost independent of the capital cost of the system.

Even so, following the csot of gilts and assuming we can uprate the track access charges with inflation - over a 50 year life of the project £100bn in initial capital costs would translate to only £2.4m/day in track access charges.

Which at 18 trains per hour, 14 hours a day (~250 trains per day) means that the capital cost of running a set on a round trip over the entire system would be only ~£9,500.

Which is less than £10/seat return trip, with high capacity sets it is going to be on order of ~£7/return trip.

That simply pails into comparison with all the other costs, especially costs associated with all the extra costs of running on classic lines.

And remember, by the time the line opens the costs are already sunk - deliberately reducing your revenue chasing breakeven is not how you recover the cost most efficiently - hence, pile it high, sell it cheap

 

[Olaf]

The optimum strategy for the infrastructure operator is to set charges at a level that will maximise revenue, you have to hit the top of the Laffer Curve.
This value is almost independent of the capital cost of the system.

Even so, following the csot of gilts and assuming we can uprate the track access charges with inflation - over a 50 year life of the project £100bn in initial capital costs would translate to only £2.4m/day in track access charges.

If you are happy with those figures that is fine. I did say base-line.

That simply pails into comparison with all the other costs, especially costs associated with all the extra costs of running on classic lines.

And remember, by the time the line opens the costs are already sunk - deliberately reducing your revenue chasing breakeven is not how you recover the cost most efficiently

Correct, I did say base-line.

- hence, pile it high, sell it cheap

As per my previous response.

Now back to the OP - No, probably not. Certainly not to the degree that the general public has been lead to believe, nor in the manner proposed.

 

[SeanM1997]

Am I the only one that things a good way to save money (approximately £1 billion) is not to build a tunnel under Crewe but for all trains to stop, and for a junction at the north and south of the station to be built to connect the line. This would mean services to Liverpool, Manchester, Scotland, Birmingham and London would all stop at Crewe and provide Crewe with the true hub station for the north. New platforms could be built to the west of the current station to allow Manchester-South Wales service to not cross the main line station, and to move Chester, Shrewsbury and Liverpool services at the west of the station and free up some of the current platforms at Crewe. Whilst £1 billion isn't much in the HS2 budget it would still be money saved whilst improving connectivity and still mean journey time reductions from across the north

 

[All Line Rover]

At the HS2 consultation event in Crewe, it was implied that the preference for the tunnel was due to the 5 minute time saving it provides for services not stopping at Crewe (the line between the north and south junctions would not be upgraded to high speed - the cost of construction and land acquisition would, apparently, be higher than the cost of the tunnel). Nonetheless, given the relatively small number of HS2 services that are proposed to use the tunnel, I agree that scrapping it would provide a good financial saving with little pain.

 

[Altnabreac]

At the HS2 consultation event in Crewe, it was implied that the preference for the tunnel was due to the 5 minute time saving it provides for services not stopping at Crewe (the line between the north and south junctions would not be upgraded to high speed - the cost of construction and land acquisition would, apparently, be higher than the cost of the tunnel). Nonetheless, given the relatively small number of HS2 services that are proposed to use the tunnel, I agree that scrapping it would provide a good financial saving with little pain.

It would be totally unacceptable for Scottish services to have a stop added at Crewe. Given the cost per minute of trying to save each minute north of Golborne to get journey times to below 3 hours a cost of "only" £200m per minute saved compares very favourably with some of the other schemes being looked at.

I suspect it's unlikely more than 1tph of Manchester - London would stop at Crewe either so at least 50% of the services passing through would be delayed by 5 minutes. Bad idea.

 

[All Line Rover]

The fast London to Scotland services won't stop at Crewe. The Birmingham to Scotland ones probably will. No different from at present.

The trouble with the tunnel is that the amount of money spent on it leaves little else to fund improvements at and around Crewe station for those HS2 services that will call at Crewe.

 

[TheDavibob]

Surely a chunk of the benefit of HS2 is a consistent stopping pattern on any part of the line? So trains either bypass stations or stop at them, rather than go fast through any (c.f. Bham Interchange, designed to be bypassed). Forcing non-stop services through Crewe itself removes this convenience.

 

[The Planner]

People need to understand that HS2 is not paying for anything at Crewe apart from the junction(s) at Basford Hall and anything that is decided at the North end. Crewe Hub is a Dft/NR funded enhancement/renewal programme. Crewe is not likely to have a massive HS2 stopping service either.

 

[All Line Rover]

Crewe is not likely to have a massive HS2 stopping service either.

Not under HS2's existing plan*, no. But to spend £1bn on a tunnel, and then have to incur further expense on improvements around Crewe (regardless of who this expense gets attributed to) because the government realises that allowing HS2 to worsen connections between Shropshire, Staffordshire, Cheshire and North Wales with Birmingham, Manchester and Scotland would not be politically acceptable, with the result that said tunnel ends up being little used, doesn't seem like the best plan, does it?

*Under which a passenger from Wilmslow to Scotland is somehow going to have to make their way to Wigan on conventional services before joining a HS2 service (which will be travelling no faster than 125mph - probably less), the current 125mph Birmingham to Scotland WCML services which call at Crewe having been scrapped.

 

[The Planner]

The money has to be spent at Crewe regardless of HS2. The layout and signalling are at the end of its useful life, the platform extensions and ancillaries to allow HS2 to stop are small in comparison. The tunnel will get more use than you think.

 

[MarkyT]

I suspect it's unlikely more than 1tph of Manchester - London would stop at Crewe either so at least 50% of the services passing through would be delayed by 5 minutes. Bad idea.

I don't see why any of the London-Manchester services need to stop at Crewe. I would have though most of these, if not all, would stop at the airport as south Manchester's (and parts of Cheshire's) 'parkway' instead, and Crewe is really too close to the airport for many trains to stop routinely at both. Crewe is more likely to be predominantly a hub where trains to a range of other destinations in the NW peel off onto the classic network, with different portions of full length trains splitting in the long platforms. With the proposed north end junction back onto HS2, some of these trains COULD be Manchester/Scotland services that drop off a portion for somewhere else on the classic network however. As others have suggested, trains from Scotland to Birmingham could also use HS2 infrastructure to the maximum extent while also calling at Crewe using the proposed additional north junction. The tunnel is absolutely vital to minimising critical longer distance journey times for London trains to Manchester, and to Scotland in particular. Getting the fastest non stop trains out of the station with such total grade separation will make the new station layout much easier to design and simpler and possibly even cheaper overall to build, especially if it avoids a series of additional grade separated flyovers, as while a decent speed alignment on the surface is probably achievable, it is absolutely not desirable to retain complex flat junctions across such high speed lines through the area. Lastly, a simpler new station layout enabled by the tunnel should be more reliable and cheaper to maintain. The tunnel solves MANY problems in reconfiguring Crewe. It is part of the correct solution.

 

[SeanM1997]

I don't see why any of the London-Manchester services need to stop at Crewe. I would have though most of these, if not all, would stop at the airport as south Manchester's (and parts of Cheshire's) 'parkway' instead, and Crewe is really too close to the airport for many trains to stop routinely at both. Crewe is more likely to be predominantly a hub where trains to a range of other destinations in the NW peel off onto the classic network, with different portions of full length trains splitting in the long platforms. With the proposed north end junction back onto HS2, some of these trains COULD be Manchester/Scotland services that drop off a portion for somewhere else on the classic network however. As others have suggested, trains from Scotland to Birmingham could also use HS2 infrastructure to the maximum extent while also calling at Crewe using the proposed additional north junction. The tunnel is absolutely vital to minimising critical longer distance journey times for London trains to Manchester, and to Scotland in particular. Getting the fastest non stop trains out of the station with such total grade separation will make the new station layout much easier to design and simpler and possibly even cheaper overall to build, especially if it avoids a series of additional grade separated flyovers, as while a decent speed alignment on the surface is probably achievable, it is absolutely not desirable to retain complex flat junctions across such high speed lines through the area. Lastly, a simpler new station layout enabled by the tunnel should be more reliable and cheaper to maintain. The tunnel solves MANY problems in reconfiguring Crewe. It is part of the correct solution.

Manchester and North Cheshire are already expensive places to live with little room of development. Having faster links from Crewe to the airport and Manchester city centre would allow for housebuilding and businesses to open in Crewe and South Cheshire where the land is cheaper, and provide better links between the airport and the rest of the country. To maximise this potential, one HS2 London to Manchester and all Birmingham to Manchester HS2 services to call at Crewe, as well as others in order to provide that link. I would also like to see this Transport for the North proposal for a HS3, and link the Birmingham to Manchester services to extend one to Hull via Bradford and Leeds and one to Edinburgh via Bradford, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle in order to provide new links from Cheshire to Yorkshire and North East. Crewe shouldn't be seen as just another station call but a centre of opportunity

 

[All Line Rover]

Manchester Airport could be a "south Manchester, Warrington and north-east Cheshire" parkway (that isn't actually in Cheshire), but not a parkway for the whole of Cheshire.

 

[MarkyT]

I would also like to see this Transport for the North proposal for a HS3, and link the Birmingham to Manchester services to extend one to Hull via Bradford and Leeds and one to Edinburgh via Bradford, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle in order to provide new links from Cheshire to Yorkshire and North East. Crewe shouldn't be seen as just another station call but a centre of opportunity

I totally agree with the idea of extending the Birmingham-Manchester HS2 axis through Manchester to integrate with the Transpennine NPR services, and concur that service tier could very logically call at both Crewe and Manchester airport en route, but I see very little benefit in London-Manchester trains also calling at both, unless some have to add the Crewe stop for portion joining and splitting.

 

[MarkyT]

Manchester Airport could be a "south Manchester, Warrington and north-east Cheshire" parkway (that isn't actually in Cheshire), but not a parkway for the whole of Cheshire.

Fair point. Clearly Crewe can also act as a parkway (and continue as the regional rail interchange) for other parts of Cheshire and surrounding counties but it would be served by a different set of trains that would be just as fast, convenient and fit for purpose as those that serve Manchester airport.

 

[SeanM1997]

Fair point. Clearly Crewe can also act as a parkway (and continue as the regional rail interchange) for other parts of Cheshire and surrounding counties but it would be served by a different set of trains that would be just as fast, convenient and fit for purpose as those that serve Manchester airport.

On the Manchester branch (not Liverpool, Scotland etc.) I would like to see the following calling pattern:
1ph London Euston, Old Oak Common, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly
1ph London Euston, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly
1ph London Euston, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Crewe, Manchester Piccadilly
1ph Birmingham Curzon Street, Crewe, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly (LL), Bradford HS3, Leeds, Hull
1ph Birmingham Curzon Street, Crewe, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly (LL), Bradford HS3, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Edinburgh

The Birmingham services could be extended to Bristol or Reading and be part of the Cross Country network

 

[The Planner]

You need to read up a bit more on the scheme. Currently Manchester is a terminal station with no access to the conventional network and there will be no access to the conventional network in Birmingham either so nothing will be going cross country.

 

[snowball]

You need to read up a bit more on the scheme. Currently Manchester is a terminal station with no access to the conventional network and there will be no access to the conventional network in Birmingham either so nothing will be going cross country.

Transport for the North's current proposals for Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) include its integration with HS2 Phase 2b, as for example in their report published yesterday,

http://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/TfN-Strategic-Plan_draft_lr.pdf

This stuff has been under discussion for some time, see the thread "HS3 timeline and ideas" in this subforum.

You may not have noticed that last autumn (actually it was at the Tory party conference) the Chancellor announced funding for seven "touchpoints" between HS2 phase 2b and NPR.

 

[The Planner]

Exactly, its a proposal at the minute. If it gets into the phase 2b hybrid bill in a few years time then great, but at the minute all there is to go on is some nice diagrams. HS2 will carry on as they are until instructed to include it.

 

[Snapper]

Talking of Crewe, the date for the 2nd Reading of the Hybrid bill to build the section to Crewe has been announced as Tuesday 30th January. I've blogged about what that means in this section of the forum. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ading-of-the-hs2-hybrid-bill-to-crewe.159582/

 

[BigVern]

Surely the point of the tunnel is for the captive gauge trains, which cannot travel on Network Rail metals.
My submission to the Crewe Hub consultation called for platforms in the tunnel, so that any train COULD stop at Crewe.
I look forward to the response!
Looking at the TfN proposals, the new HS route from Liverpool to HS2 could see the Liverpool to London trains using the tunnel too.
Nothing much left for calls at Crewe then.