SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The construction of HS2, a high speed rail link between London and the north of England, has been approved. The announcement was made by Boris Johnson yesterday. Phase 1, due for completion in 2028 at the earliest, will be between London and Birmingham; Phase 2, due in 2035 at the earliest, will be two separate lines onwards to Manchester and Leeds.
The trains will travel at up to 250 mph. They will otherwise be conventional, and will take electrical power from overhead catenary. The line will have connections with existing ones, enabling some trains to continue at lower speeds to further destinations, such as Liverpool and Scotland.
The routes will be broadly parallel with existing ones, which are generally running at full capacity. Rail passenger travel in the UK has greatly increased in recent years and this, rather than the reduction in journey times, is the main driver for the project.
Note : It is called HS2 because it is the second high speed line in the UK, HS1 being the link from St. Pancras International railway station in central London to the Channel Tunnel.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Thursday February 13 2020, @07:13AM (25 children)
Sure it will cost billions but...
London to Leeds by rail is currently about £100.
Each train carries 1,200 people, and 8 trains a day (probably more)
that's about 100,000 people a day, and £100 each or £10M a day.
And trains on about 360 days a year, so £3.6B a year in tickets.
and the trains will make return trips so £7.2B - and think how much more the tickets will cost by the time its finished!
(With Brexit, the GBP will be worth about EUR 0.10 by then - if not sooner).
And the line will also carry freight day and night,
Trains are big business
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @07:46AM (15 children)
£100 sounds rather expensive already. How much is travel by car?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:08AM (12 children)
HMRC are hardly known for giving away things, but have allowed people to claim 45p per mile for car journeys. Manchester-London thus has a total cost (including wear and tear, deprecation, etc) of £190, and 8 hours return. The train is half that - 4 hours return and £90. Flying is about £400 return, but only makes sense for West London to South West Manchester (about 1h50 from arriving at heathrow to leaving at manchester).
If you book in advance the train and plane prices do drop.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:25AM (10 children)
That £90 price tag from Manchester would be for a flexible off-peak ticket. The fact that it doesn't allow you to arrive into London between 07:30 and 11:30, or leave between 15:00 and 18:45, would make it impractical for many people. (See here [brfares.com] for details.) They'd either have to buy a yield-managed (single train validity) ticket in advance, at whatever the current yield price was, or opt for an anytime flexible return ticket for £360. (Or if you bought an anytime single one way, and an off-peak single in the other direction, you could do it for £270.) And that's without considering whether using a combination of tickets (split-ticketing) could save you more money.
Giving a simple price for train travel is tricky. Often, the best answer is "it depends".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @01:07PM (2 children)
To put this in perspective, a return flight to New York from Manchester is around the same.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday February 13 2020, @06:55PM (1 child)
I just checked and United are charging £1400 return Manchester to New York, and if you want to change that ticket it will cost £150. Fare basis MKWRCB0
I can get a London-NY flight on Norweigan for £1014 return with a £110 change.
BA are selling the next Manchester-NY flight for £2,281.64 in economy.
Compare apples to apples
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:00PM
Look at Aer Lingus - £410 - £414 or look here. [kayak.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday February 13 2020, @07:03PM (6 children)
Not many people will be driving from Manchester to London and arriving before 11:30. A 7AM train from Picadilly will get you to Euston for 9AM and your office for 0930. To get to a central london office for 0930 via car and tube only would require leaving about 4AM from Manchester. Same on the way back - to get back to Manchester for 9PM (when the first off peak trains start arriving) you'd have to leave London about 1530.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @01:39AM
20 years back, there was a northern service early train at about £25 return, leave Manchester at 7AM, depart Euston at 8PM. At 3% pa, that ticket should be around £45 but today the cheapest I can find is £175, dropping to £111 with a 5am departure. You can get a plane for less and £175 is around twice the cost of fuel and toll if you were to travel by car.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday February 14 2020, @06:51AM (4 children)
Which is part of why the rail company have been able to increase the anytime fare so high: they've got a captive audience.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday February 14 2020, @01:38PM (3 children)
You can also fly from Manchester to London, it's a similar price, but the frequency is far worse.
If you care more about cost than time, you can travel from manchester to london for £45 return, departing Manchester after 0729, returning from Euston at any time after 0845. Takes about 4h, so still faster than driving. First train in the morning is 0730 Picadilly, change at Crewe onto the 0816, arriving Euston at 10:30.
On the way back, the 1646, 1746, 1946 from Euston will get you to Crewe for 1901, 2002, 2200, then onto the 1937/2024/2308 to arrive at 2019/2107/2348
So 4 hours down, 3h30 back - faster than the care, flexible walk-up ticket, for £45 return.
Competition is great, for Manchester to London you've got
Fast+Peak+Pricey+Flexible (Avanti)
Slow+Peak+Cheap+Flexible (TfW/LNR)
Fast+OffPeak+Reasonable+Flexible (Avanti)
Slow+OffPeak+Cheap+Flexible (TfW/LNR)
Slow+Peak+Reasonable+Fixed (various advanced tickets)
Slow+OffPeak+Cheap+Fixed (various advanced tickets)
Fast+Fixed+Pricey (Fly)
Slow+Flexible+Reasonable (Drive)
Slow+uncomfortable+cheap (Coach)
Just off the top of my head.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday February 14 2020, @05:07PM (2 children)
Yes indeed, there are a multitude of different options. I should have said that for people that need to be in London for the start of the working day, the anytime ticket is so high because they have a captive audience. (Except for those few that will choose to fly. But the air market for Manchester to London has really tanked since the train frequency went up to 3 per hour.)
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday February 14 2020, @05:21PM (1 child)
Still other options - like travelling the night before.
If your limit is “travelling from central London to central Manchester in under 2.5 hours” then yes, there are limited choices. But if fares were too high someone would start a London city to Barton scheduled flight.
Fact is that plenty of people are willing to pay for the convenience of fast frequent travel at peak times. Many more will pay even more to travel first class. For those who travel frequently season tickets are about £80 a day (£16k a year)
For those unwilling there are plenty of tickets at a leas convenient time at far less, down below 10p/mile
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday February 15 2020, @04:27AM
I think we're both arguing vehementy from the same side of the argument, here. (That's my feeling at least.) Yes, there are enough people willing to pay ₤300 return to travel in and out of London at peak times, or get their expenses account to do so. For those that can't the railways offer several alternatives, most of which involve travelling at a quieter time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @01:01PM
No, about 5 hours return plus local transport and if there are 4 of you, it's cheaper to hire an uber.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @05:34PM (1 child)
Same journey by bus will be about 25
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday February 14 2020, @02:12PM
Yet far more people will choose to pay far far more to travel by train. I think that shows what a bad idea long distance buses are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Thursday February 13 2020, @07:53AM
Those figures assume that you can fill every seat at ₤100, when in fact the railways use yield mangement pricing, just like airlines do. Some tickets will be sold for significantly less, particularly on quiet trains. This encourages people who are more flexible with their travel times to avoid taking up space in the morning and evening rush, as well as encouraging travel (and thus money) from those who would otherwise have decided they couldn't afford to go by train.
If you plan in advance, you can get a one-way ticket (restricted to a particular train) for less than ₤20.
(Score: 4, Informative) by kazzie on Thursday February 13 2020, @07:59AM
"And the line will also carry freight day and night"
The new line (HS2) won't; that's part of the problem on the existing WCML: slower freight trains (and all-stops local trains) get in the way of the express services, which keep catching them up. This means you need bigger timing gaps beteeen trains, which reduces the railway's capacity.
By moving the express trains to a new railway line, they'll free up space on the old lines for more local services and freight trains.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by isostatic on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:01AM (4 children)
Leeds-London is £58 each way off peak, £135 each way peak.
Manchester-London is £46 each way off peak, £180 each way peak
Birmingham-London is £29 e/w off peak, £92 peak
First class are significantly higher than that.
I don't know about Leeds, but I do know current Manchester and Birmingham trains are about 70% full, with a few standing-only trains (first few trains either side of peak period) and some that are more 30% full (the 9pm train)
10 years ago trains were 40% full - a 70% growth from the West Mids and North West in 10 years, so at that rate trains will be 100% full on almost all routes before phase 1 is even built.
Currently Birmingham has about 3x 500 seat trains an hour, plus another 150 seat local train, and a couple of 200 seat mid-speed trains, so about 2000 seats an hour.
Manchester has 3x500, Liverpool 1x500, so that's 2000
North West into Scotland (Warrington-Carlise-Glasgow) gets another 500, and Chester/North Wales gets about 400.
Total about 4-5k an hour.
HS2 will add 3000 seats an hour to Birmingham, 3000 to Manchester, 1000 to liverpool, 1000 to the north west and glasgow, so that's 8k to the north west, more than doubling capacity. Total number of seats will be between 14k and 18k an hour in each direction.
At £100 each way for the north and £50 for birmingham it may just about break even, if it's well loaded.
But that's not the point, it's essential infrastructure for the country. Without it, people won't be able to get from places like Rugby and Bletchley to Birmingham or London for work.
HS2 current budget is £86b. Anti HS2 people say it will cost £106b. For 340 miles of track.
The UK is currently spending £7b on a new 14 mile motorway east of London to let people drive from Kent to Essex a bit easier. That's £500m/mile and delivers 8,000 people an hour in each direction (average car occupancy being 1.4, and 1800 cars per motorway lane).
At the "stop hs2" figures, HS2 costs £300m/mile (including stations and rolling stock) for at least 14,000 people an hour in each direction. That's 3 times better value for money than the lower thames crossing.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Thursday February 13 2020, @03:03PM (3 children)
I am quite sure you are better informed than me. However, I have had the dubious "pleasure" of standing all the way from Leeds to London and back on more than one occasion.
Fortunately, I was not the one paying.
"Wi' no shoes, in the snow, an' it were up-hill both ways!"
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday February 13 2020, @06:59PM (2 children)
I know very little about rail on the east side of the pennines. I don't think I've ever been on the ECML, and only once on MML. Been on transpennine a couple of times from Manchester to Leeds and York (which is horrendously overcrowded)
HS2 will clearly help Leeds-London traffic by adding thousands of seats an hour. It will also take current Leeds-London passengers off the trains allowing more seats for those traveling to/from Doncaster, Wakefield etc.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday February 14 2020, @06:34AM (1 child)
It will once the second phase is built (assuming it is built as currently planned).
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday February 14 2020, @01:52PM
Yes, the strongest argument against HS2 is "they won't build it to the north".
Even then it will at least help Birmingham
(Score: 2) by ledow on Thursday February 13 2020, @04:52PM (1 child)
Trains are one of the most expensive ways to travel in the UK.
I can get from London to Leeds for far less than £100 by car, including parking, and it'll likely take not much more time on average - especially when you consider that you have to get to the station, wait for the train, get out of the other end, get to your final destination, etc. (Google says 4h by care, the train average is "from 3h 6m"). And a car can carry 4/5 people for that price.
Gimme an electric car with a decent range and you could do it for pence.
I drive from London to Cornwall and Scotland purely because trains are too goddamn expensive, even for a holiday. They only make any kind of economic sense inside the city itself (Metro-like / Underground / subway services). Long train-trips are a nonsense, oft-delayed (ironically because of things like the works for the HS2 interfering with the normal timetable for the last 10 years!), and draining. The companies that do them are losing their franchises all the time because the service is so dire.
I can get to damn France quicker than I can get to Leeds.
Ticket prices are far above inflation EVERY SINGLE YEAR, and still the services suck.
Trains aren't big business in the UK - not while they're run on basically state-controlled tracks and franchises. That's why they have such a terrible reputation. There are literally an entire class of jokes about the quality of British Rail from the 60's and they're still used today. They can't afford to maintain the track, they can't afford to buy new fleets (some trains are still from the 60's), they can't even afford to refund when there are delays.
Sure, states should be putting in the infrastructure at great expense, but HS2 is ALREADY over-time, over-budget, and doesn't exist yet, 11 years after first planning. They are literally talking number 4-5 times the original budget, even accounting for inflation. That's why this is *news*. They've literally looked at it *yet again*, when the budget has doubled *yet again*, and the progress is minimal *yet again* and decided to carry on rather than lose face *yet again*. It comes up every couple of years.
Cut your losses, or build the thing at any damn expense as quickly as you can. All we have at the moment is a lot of destroyed countryside, compulsory-purchased houses, and a very, very, very expensive contract for people to dig holes.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday February 14 2020, @02:10PM
Almost everything you've written is wrong
> I can get from London to Leeds for far less than £100 by car, including parking
Parking in central london, plus congestion charge, will set you back nearly that much, unless you're parking someone miles from your destination and relying on the tube
Train from London to Leeds is 2h10 to 2h20 every 30 minutes. It used to take me 2h10 to drive 35 miles into London in the rush hour when I used to drive in daily.
> Gimme an electric car with a decent range and you could do it for pence.
Again ignoring the cost of the vehicle. Even if you had a £10k electric car that needed no maintenence at all (types, batteries, insurance, etc), and lasted 100,000 miles, that's still 10p/mile, that's a £40 round trip. At 3 miles per KWH that's about 4p/mile so another £15. You're assuming the cost of the road is £0
(You're also ignoring the cost of your time)
> oft-delayed (ironically because of things like the works for the HS2 interfering with the normal timetable for the last 10 years!),
I travel long distance every week or two, I haven't managed to claim delay repay (i.e >30 minute delay) for over a year. HS2 works haven't added any delay to any journey
> Ticket prices are far above inflation EVERY SINGLE YEAR
Ticket prices increase by RPI
> not while they're run on basically state-controlled tracks and franchises
You are literally proposing driving on state controlled roads, paid for not by the user, but by the state
> All we have at the moment is a lot of destroyed countryside, compulsory-purchased houses, and a very, very, very expensive contract for people to dig holes.
No we don't have a lot of destroyed countryside. The total amount of "destroyed countryside" is the same as that for a new 10 mile motorway belng built east of London.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 13 2020, @08:09AM (5 children)
Funny how there's no mention about plans to extend it in Scotland.
It's like the brits don't want to give the scots a reason to stay in UK, eh?
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Thursday February 13 2020, @08:19AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 13 2020, @08:31AM
May be troubles if they decide not to let those brits put their windmills on their land and start dealing with them euro-norsk people instead. Some would think sie Germans would be happier to buy wind-power from somewhere rather than russian gas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:35AM (2 children)
Do bear in mind that the only posrtion of high-speed railway that has actually been authorised and confirmed so far is from London to Brimingham (plus a spur toward Crewe for onward connections). Trains will then continue on the existing tracks to a variety of destinations including Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow (i.e. Scotland), while any additional portions of high-speed line are built.
Original plans included subsequent high-speed routes to Manchester and Leeds in a Y-shaped configuration, but there's since been a political commitment to an east-west high-speed railway somewhere along the Manchester-Leeds axis, and it's not clear how these objectives are going to be combined; that's part of the reason that "phase 2" has been sent back to the drawing board.
Furthermore, responsibility for rail infrastructure has been devolved from Westminster to Scotland, so if they want high-speed rail north of the border, they'll be building it themselves. Not that there's much point in them starting to build southwards until England has built their line a bit further north...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:49AM (1 child)
(Sorry, I can't resist, but bears do it in he woods)
Now, with that lameness outta my mind...
Well, that does not sound like "Heya, neighbor! Need a hand?".
A reason more for them to think at independence, 'cause if the neighbor looks down on you (because, wtf, Scotland has nothing but deficit) and is not willing to get on a better footing, what good is to let that neighbor tell you how to live?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday February 14 2020, @06:33AM
Scotland may have responsibility for their own rail infrastructure, but they get a budget for it too. Because the UK is spending all this extra money on high-speed rail in England, the federal funding rules (Barnett formula) mean that Scotland gets a certain proportion of the total cost to spend as it sees fit. They could spend it on their own little high speed line, but I understand they're using it for other improvements, like electrifying existing lines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @08:41AM (1 child)
Hah! If we meet our schedule, we'll be able to travel from Merced to Bakersfield on HSR a year ahead of you Brits. Take that! (In case you don't get it, that's sarcasm).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @09:10AM
You will get Hyperloop before HSR. Sometime in the 2100s.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 13 2020, @02:31PM (6 children)
I love high speed rail. The Shinkansen, the TGV in France, they're awesome. Flicking through the countryside and going from city center to city center beats air travel hands down.
But if our automobile fleet is about to transition to self-driving electric cars, do high-speed trains still make sense? If you can ride in the safety of your own car and lay back and sleep, while the car drives itself point-to-point, does it still make sense for us to make the massive public investment in high speed rail?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Thursday February 13 2020, @03:08PM (5 children)
If you can ride in the safety of your own car
That is a very big if.
In the unlikely event of the traffic flowing at all, subjects to speed limits of 70MPH or lower.
Trains go over 200 MPH for most of the journey.
You can lay back and sleep safely in your car? And wake up, clean, fresh and without a killer backache?
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 13 2020, @06:10PM (4 children)
There are few places even in America where you cannot get in a 15-hr drive. Get in your car, watch a movie, read a book, play a game with your family, eat a meal, turn in. Wake up in the morning, have your coffee and a danish, arrive at your destination. No taxis or baggage claim or subways required. Door to door.
Yes, the absolute speed of a high-speed train is higher. But you have to travel on their schedule. You have to try to get tickets. You have to lug your gear to the station and hope the train doesn't lose it. You have to submit to an anal probe and advanced genital fondling from security. And unless you buy a first class cabin, you will still sleep poorly and wake up with a hurt back and grotty from lack of shower.
If self-driving cars fully arrive, it's a safe bet that manufacturers will make the seats more comfortable for sleeping, able to pivot so they can face backward & interact with the other passengers, etc.
If that's what we're talking about, do high speed trains still make sense?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quietus on Thursday February 13 2020, @06:53PM (1 child)
Interesting question.
What are the costs of maintaining highway infrastructure versus high speed rail maintenance?
If we go all-electric on transport, what will that do to the cost of your electricity bill, which you must pay to make use of modern society (lights, internet, phone)? Is that price increase fair to people who don't use cars? Is that price increase fair to the poor who can't afford a Tesla? to city dwellers who can easily move around using public transport?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 14 2020, @03:38AM
Yeah I don't really know the answer. Just musing. It seems like we've already built and are maintaining the highways and roads, so that's a wash. Spending extra billions on high speed rail when the other things are about to render it mostly moot doesn't seem as necessary as it did a few years ago.
For coast-to-coast travel, or to hop over the big ponds I'd prefer lighter-than-air travel in zeppelins to trains or ships. I know I'm a bit of an oddball on that one but I really, really hate 747s. For anything from New York to the upper Great Plains I'd take a self-driving EV before a high speed train because I wouldn't have to bother switching modes and could stop off and see stuff along the way; a lot of people consider the middle of the country empty "Flyover Country," but there's so much cool stuff you'd never get to see except by car, like the Lake Superior Highlands, the Indiana State Dunes, Great River Bluffs State Park, and so on.
That's hard to say also. I imagine most people would charge their cars at night, when the 24-hr spot prices for grid power are lowest. Utilities typically run at a loss then and make it up during peak in the afternoon and early evening. So people charging at night would probably only bring that cost curve up to break-even. In some places it's even possible to time-shift your billing such that you charge up batteries at night when rates are lowest and run off batteries during peak. Utilities don't mind that so much because they get to minimize their losses at night and don't have to work so hard to make sure they have enough capacity to handle spikes during peak.
But that's with things as they are now. Renewables, though, are coming on strong. Solar has already reached grid parity in something like 35 states. Eventually home owners will figure that out and become their own mini power plants. So that will affect rates also. And the higher grid power rates go up, the more financially advantageous it becomes to go solar.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday February 14 2020, @05:40PM (1 child)
That sounds a lot like catching a plane.
More seriously, in the UK context, the only time you'll be subjected to any significant security checks is if you're travelling through the channel tunnel [eurostar.com]. That also includes passport checks, because the UK's never been part of the Shengen travel zone. Any other train, and you just get on board (having possibly shown your ticket as you step onto the platform).
You have to get tickets and travel on the railway's schedule, yes. But many important routes have two, three, or more trains an hour. The cheapest tickets will tie you to a particular train, but standard tickets are flexible, and you can travel on any train you like. Had a day's business in London, and heading home to Manchester? No need to worry what time the train leaves, as there'll be another one twenty minutes later. Just enough time for another drink before heading off.
You'll have to lug your gear to the station, but the train isn't going to be able to lose it for you: you stick it in a luggage rack or on a shelf in the same carriage as you are.
The only trains where you'll even find a first class cabin is on sleeper trains (and some of those have on-board showers now). There's only two routes that still have sleeper trains in the UK now, partially because the UK's small enough that you often don't have to travel overnight to get to where you need to be in the morning. Current daytime trains will take you from London to Glasgow in less than five hours, and the planned high speed rail will bring that below four, approaching three: that's not enough time to fall asleep!
For routes/flows with a lot of travellers, definitely. If you've got a few thousand people travelling to London for the day, where would you park all those self-driving cars? Better for them to share a train, and then you can send the train back the way it came to move some more people.
Granted, the state of play on a big continent like North America is very different. But TFA is about UK High Speed Rail...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 14 2020, @08:18PM
That's a good question, too. I've read some think self-driving cars could be sent home again (if we're talking about commuters) or they could run around as ride-share vehicles while you're at work to earn you, the car owner, extra income.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @07:32PM
i wonder what it's going to look like when a sand nigger sets off a bomb at 250mph.