Playing with trains/ HS2 & 3

[Pabmusic]

Don't panic Pabs - I aint that bad!!!!!!!

[mangerton]

If you want to see who benefits from the fracking revolution, have a look at who is running it.Clue: it's a man who is employed by the government to develop fracking AND is chairman of a company holding fracking licenses.

He sounds like just the very chap. He's bound to be impartial.

[aeolium]

He sounds like just the very chap. He's bound to be impartial.

Just like Dave Hartnett then, the former head of HMRC who has joined Deloitte as a consultant to advise on tax (avoidance?) matters.

I think the latest increase in the HS2 budget to over £42bn (which itself is as likely to be exceeded as the Olympic budget was) really makes the cost-benefit case unjustifiable. The comparisons which ministers make with high-speed rail in France and Germany simply don't stand up: those countries are far bigger than ours and long-distance high-speed rail makes more sense. London to Scotland in 4.5 hours or less is a quite acceptable journey time and could possibly be improved with more conventional means. The cost-benefit justifications for HS2 include a presumption that when people are in trains they are unable to do any work which is patently nonsense: most inter-city trains are humming with laptops/ipads/mobiles and business conversations.

The big problem in Britain is the absurdly high cost of train travel when every effort should be made to get more people out of cars. And the worst cost is for "turn up and go" fares where the passenger has not booked in advance. The current issue of Private Eye reports that passenger numbers in that category have been falling significantly. Nowhere else in Europe is such a premium required for passengers who have not booked in advance, and this affects tourists and those who for whatever reason have to make a journey they had not planned for. Increasingly, affordable rail travel is reserved for those able to grapple with the byzantine advance booking fare structure (and of course able to book long in advance and travel off-peak). How on earth will HS2 be able to provide affordable rail travel, or will it be - like so much else in our wealth-divided society - reserved for businessmen and the well-off retired?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's all in the eyes. Look at George Osborn. You can tell by his eyes that he knows he doesn't know what he 's doing. But he carries on because his controller tells him, and he likes his own fa salary.

[ahinton]

Just like Dave Hartnett then, the former head of HMRC who has joined Deloitte as a consultant to advise on tax (avoidance?) matters.

...which serves to illustrate the old adage that if you want to find out how best to fiddle your taxes go and ask a retired or ex-tax inspector...

I think the latest increase in the HS2 budget to over £42bn (which itself is as likely to be exceeded as the Olympic budget was) really makes the cost-benefit case unjustifiable. The comparisons which ministers make with high-speed rail in France and Germany simply don't stand up: those countries are far bigger than ours and long-distance high-speed rail makes more sense.

Whilst I agree that this project is doomed from the outset and its alleged cost benefit is a myth, the project is not even for a "high speed" rail service; the projected maximum speeds for the quaintly (and misleadingly) named HS2 are way below existing maxima for long-distance trains, so they may well turn out to be snail's pace in comparison what what other countries will have been able to achieve by the time the project reaches completion in 19 years' time (assuming that it doesn't overrun).

That said, though, what do you advocate as the most effective form of fast inter-city transportation for Britain? France has far fewer domestic flights than Britain; would you seek nevertheless to increase Britain's domestic flight input?

London to Scotland in 4.5 hours or less is a quite acceptable journey time and could possibly be improved with more conventional means.

But is it? - and can the mere fact that France is (as you observe) a far larger country than Britain justify the ability to travel by train from Paris to Marseille in 3 hours when it takes at least half as long again to do so from London to Edinburgh, especially when the distance between the former two cities is some 80 miles greater than that between the latter two?

The cost-benefit justifications for HS2 include a presumption that when people are in trains they are unable to do any work which is patently nonsense: most inter-city trains are humming with laptops/ipads/mobiles and business conversations.

That, of course, is true.

The big problem in Britain is the absurdly high cost of train travel when every effort should be made to get more people out of cars. And the worst cost is for "turn up and go" fares where the passenger has not booked in advance. The current issue of Private Eye reports that passenger numbers in that category have been falling significantly. Nowhere else in Europe is such a premium required for passengers who have not booked in advance, and this affects tourists and those who for whatever reason have to make a journey they had not planned for. Increasingly, affordable rail travel is reserved for those able to grapple with the byzantine advance booking fare structure (and of course able to book long in advance and travel off-peak). How on earth will HS2 be able to provide affordable rail travel, or will it be - like so much else in our wealth-divided society - reserved for businessmen and the well-off retired?

You make valid points here but, in answer to your first, how can "every effort be made to get more people out of cars" in Britain when its fastest trains are considerably slower than those in some other countries and when so many of its shorter distance commuter trains are already so desperately overcrowded, especially in the south east of England? I agree with you about the fare "structures" which can indeed on occasion make it possible to travel first class for less than it does to travel second class (OK, "standard" class, if you will - as though first class has no standard!) provided that one knows how to do it when booking (an exercise than can feel almost like that of tax avoidance!), but even the absurd and absurdly confusing deals for advance booking are of no use to those who purchase annual season tickets in advance at enormous expense.

[aeolium]

That said, though, what do you advocate as the most effective form of fast inter-city transportation for Britain? France has far fewer domestic flights than Britain; would you seek nevertheless to increase Britain's domestic flight input?

Don't you think at least one reason that there are so many more domestic flights in Britain than in France is that they are much cheaper than long-distance train travel, which is not the case in France? As an example, someone I know wants to make a trip from Bristol to Inverness in August. Even booking ahead with the train, the cost of a single ticket is 50p short of £200. By contrast, the easyjet return cost is around £88. When one takes into account the extra time for getting to and from the airport, airport security and check-in etc, there is not a massive difference in time saved by air, but there is a massive difference in money saved. Do you think the existence of an HS2 service would make a difference to my friend's choice if the cost comparison remained the same (and travel via HS2 might well be even more expensive)?

But is it? - and can the mere fact that France is (as you observe) a far larger country than Britain justify the ability to travel by train from Paris to Marseille in 3 hours when it takes at least half as long again to do so from London to Edinburgh, especially when the distance between the former two cities is some 80 miles greater than that between the latter two?

I'm not sure why the saving of an hour or an hour and a half is so important, though of course it would be nice to have. Is it worth £42bn though?

I don't disagree that we have a poorer rail service here than in several other European countries, notably Germany and France, and that is due to a variety of historical reasons though mostly under-investment by successive governments over several decades. I am all in favour of greater investment in rail, but I merely question the priorities of lumping such a large amount in one project of dubious value. And I don't think investment of that kind, without tackling the structural failings of the industry - the ghastly mess of rail franchising for instance (see Private Eyes passim) - and the problem of high prices, can really turn the industry round. You mention overcrowding, but don't you think the current franchising system with its emphasis on maximising profits for shareholders and bonuses for executives creates a perverse incentive to cram as many passengers into as few carriages as possible (the passengers are still paying even though they can't sit down and there's less need for that expensive rolling-stock)?

[mangerton]

Just like Dave Hartnett then, the former head of HMRC who has joined Deloitte as a consultant to advise on tax (avoidance?) matters.

Yes, Mr Hartnett is another shining example from our lords and masters of how to behave in public office.

This may have been posted before, but is worth another look.

[Gordon]

http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/national-audit-office-critical-about-hs2

Also this takes some believing:

http://news.cision.com/cilt-news---events/r/britain-has-best-railway-in-europe--new-institute-president-sets-out-transport-agenda-for-next-12-mo,c9422141

but then this is the EC talking and then there's this?

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/04/02-rail-in-britain-most-improved.html

However if you read the Daily Star [with apologies for those of a nervous disposition who are among the 139 that complained about Holly Willoughby's dress]:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/319204/Britain-s-railways-worst-in-Europe-

[ahinton]

Don't you think at least one reason that there are so many more domestic flights in Britain than in France is that they are much cheaper than long-distance train travel, which is not the case in France? As an example, someone I know wants to make a trip from Bristol to Inverness in August. Even booking ahead with the train, the cost of a single ticket is 50p short of £200. By contrast, the easyjet return cost is around £88. When one takes into account the extra time for getting to and from the airport, airport security and check-in etc, there is not a massive difference in time saved by air, but there is a massive difference in money saved. Do you think the existence of an HS2 service would make a difference to my friend's choice if the cost comparison remained the same (and travel via HS2 might well be even more expensive)?

Yes, of course the cost is a major factor, although it is less than clear to me why France has so few "low cost" domestic flights compared to Britain given that at least some of the operators of "low cost" domestic flights within Britain also operate them between Britain and France. With a journey like Bristol to Inverness there is indeed also a vast time saving because, whilst airport security can indeed be time-consuming sometimes, check-in time can be minimised by checking in electronically when booking and the time to get to and from airports must be set against time to get to and from the stations; the best that I could find by train was a return journey time of 19 hours 14 minutes and this involves 3 changes of train on the outward journey and 2 on the return one, whereas the advertised flight times are a mere 1 hour 25 minutes in each direction! As I implied, I can see no point in HS2 because, as you say, journey costs will well outweigh any usefulness that its might otherwise have and, whilst it will reduce the time spent in travelling from London to Birmingham, flights will still have a possible competitive edge (albeit not much) on journeys between London and Manchester / Leeds.

I'm not sure why the saving of an hour or an hour and a half is so important, though of course it would be nice to have. Is it worth £42bn though?

Not in my opinion.

I don't disagree that we have a poorer rail service here than in several other European countries, notably Germany and France, and that is due to a variety of historical reasons though mostly under-investment by successive governments over several decades. I am all in favour of greater investment in rail, but I merely question the priorities of lumping such a large amount in one project of dubious value. And I don't think investment of that kind, without tackling the structural failings of the industry - the ghastly mess of rail franchising for instance (see Private Eyes passim) - and the problem of high prices, can really turn the industry round. You mention overcrowding, but don't you think the current franchising system with its emphasis on maximising profits for shareholders and bonuses for executives creates a perverse incentive to cram as many passengers into as few carriages as possible (the passengers are still paying even though they can't sit down and there's less need for that expensive rolling-stock)?

The problem with greater investment in rail is that, if the end product is to be of any use to anyone, the costs of travel will have to be slashed drastically in order that the long distance services can compete on affordability with those provided by airlines; this just won't be possible to achieve if the rail network is even to pay for itself, let alone make a profit as airlines have to do, because the cost per km of long distance rail travel (and ditto road travel, for that matter) is vastly greater than it is for domestic air travel - and I don't think that it could make any material difference to customer cost benefit whether Britain's rail network is operated by the present or some revamped franchising system or by any other means, because it all still has to be paid for somehow - not just the construction and maintenance of the network but also the day-to-day running costs. If the franchising system were to be abolished altogether and the entire network placed in state hands, those costs would surely remain more or less the same as they are now.

[Dave2002]

http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/new...ical-about-hs2

Also this takes some believing:

http://news.cision.com/cilt-news---events/r/britain-has-best-railway-in-europe--new-institute-president-sets-out-transport-agenda-for-next-12-mo,c9422141

but then this is the EC talking and then there's this?

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/04/02-rail-in-britain-most-improved.html

However if you read the Daily Star [with apologies for those of a nervous disposition who are among the 139 that complained about Holly Willoughby's dress]:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/vie...rst-in-Europe-

Interesting to note that Jim Steer is still active. [2nd of your links] - I'm with you in disbelief too.

I'm not actually a great fan of air travel, and personally I often find it uncomfortable, but some of the arguments for rail based on energy costs may very well be false. I do believe that high speed trains deliver in terms of energy costs for running compared with air travel, though energy costs for a fast train are very considerably higher than for slower trains travelling the same distance. A high speed train running at cruising speed uses up MegaWatts of power - enough to power at very least a modest village. In fairness though, the energy use per passenger might be acceptable.

Some other comments which have been made recently on this thread are open to question. It may not be the case that continental trains are generally better than UK ones, though TGVs and ICE etc. probably are. OTOH there are many slow lines on the European continent, and some really poor train operators. I'm not going to point fingers - there's a mix of good and bad, but overall I doubt whether the UK is significantly worse, if at all compared with continental operators. It could even be better.

The TGVs are quite interesting. They typically run at 5km/minute out of Paris on the west coast line towards Bordeaux, which reduces to 3km/minute somewhere maybe half way between Paris and Bordeaux. Further flung stretches, such as from Bordeaux to Biarritz (particularly), or on the line to Toulouse may not be running at much more than 1km/minute - or so it feels. I don't know enough about ICE operation to know if those trains also have some relatively slow operation over significant stretches of line.

Where I suspect that valid comparisons with air fail is that in air travel most of the infrastructure is at the end points - airports, plus some communications computer and organisational infrastructure - whereas for rail transport a significant proportion of the infrastructure is between the end points - track, stations (not that there'll be many for HS2!), maintenance staff etc. My view is that a proper comparison between air travel for low traffic density flows and rail could very well show that air travel is more cost effective. It is also more flexible to a point, as aircraft can be used to travel to different locations. Cost comparisons should not simply ignore construction costs for infrastructure, or maintenance costs, and in the case of rail travel there is likely to be a significant cost component which depends on the distance between end points.

[aeolium]

With a journey like Bristol to Inverness there is indeed also a vast time saving

Of course you are right - I had not factored in all the train changes and had been making the comparison as for the London-Edinburgh route. Yet I can well believe that the cost differential may be as great for those direct train routes compared with, say, Gatwick to Edinburgh.

Perhaps the conclusion from your and Dave2002's comments are that long distance train travel can never be competitive with air travel unless there is a high degree of subsidy (though there already is that on UK railways - more than there was under British Rail) and unless short-haul air travel is made more expensive by an environmental surcharge to reflect its greater emissions per passenger ratio. I suspect the latter will be made impossible for electoral reasons: which government will dare introduce a tax e.g. doubling the cost of inter-European air transport?

What I was thinking about greater rail investment was really about smaller-scale discrete projects to tackle particular problems like overcrowding on certain routes, the rail electrification of the main London-Wales line (which is now going to happen), increase and improvement in rolling stock, extending station platforms to accommodate longer trains where necessary, etc. So mainly about trying to improve the infrastructure. And also of course replacing the franchise system*. Since no rail network can ever pay for itself and will need extensive state expenditure, just as roads do, it should be considered as a public service and one which is worth spending money on for its environmental benefits (compared with road and air transport) alone - it is necessary for reducing road congestion and the country's carbon emissions. So I would be in favour of renationalisation of rail though since only the Greens (among parties I am able to vote for) have it as a policy I'm not expecting it to happen any time soon. And needless to say, HS2 is supported by all the main parties despite the very mixed reaction to it among the public and from economists and industry professionals.

* Here is the press release from the recent Manchester University CRESC report into the franchising system and the effects of rail privatisation over two decades. There is a link to the full report there.

[teamsaint]

As Aeolium suggests, a small proportion of the HS2 budget spent elsewhere* could do a huge amount of good.

Can anybody explain to me why the last WCML train out of Euston for Manchester is at 10 PM? is there really no demand after that time? are there noise issues or restrictions?

* Edit: on Rail infrastucture

[Nick Armstrong]

Can anybody explain to me why the last WCML train out of Euston for Manchester is at 10 PM? is there really no demand after that time? are there noise issues or restrictions?

I'd love to know the answer to that too.

Crossrail always strikes me as a white elephant. It would have been better if the tunnel between Paddington and Liverpool Street had passed through Euston and King's Cross/St Pancras, enabling InterCity trains from the west of England to connect with mainline services to the north and with Eurostar.

I have rarely agreed more with anything on this Forum than that, EA....

An admirable sentiment. I see you follow the proud tradition of disguising the word. The very first written appearance of the word in English is disguised. It's is in a poem known as Flen, flyys and freris (Fleas, flies and friars) dating from about 1475. It's written in English and 'dog Latin' and is very rude about the Carmelite friars of Ely - "Non sunt in coeli, quia gxddbov xxkxzt pg ifmk". It's a simple code that deciphers as "fvccant vvivys of heli", or "they are not in heaven because they **** the wives of Ely".

Interestingly, it's not an Anglo-Saxon word at all, though we usually think of it so. It is Germanic, though (the same can be said for the C-word*, which didn't enter English till about 1200).

Odd how these things come back to me.

*[Or to Chaucer, the Q-word and K-word as well. He spells it five different ways in The Canterbury Tales, to the regular surprise of anyone from Kent.]

... and I have rarely been better informed and entertained than that, Pabs!

[Gordon]

....Can anybody explain to me why the last WCML train out of Euston for Manchester is at 10 PM? is there really no demand after that time? are there noise issues or restrictions?

Dunno, but the same reason that the last Liverpool train is at 21.07!! Late arrivals ie post midnight at destination may mean extra pay for crews?? And the train sets may need overnight servicing at local depots - too late and can't be done in time for first out at 5.05 next morning? Wrong sort of Virgins in the lIine?

ECML: Last train to Leeds is at 23.30 arr 02.36 so no problem with late working there!! Similar distance too. FGW to Cardiff: last train 23.30 arr 02.32.

[ahinton]

Perhaps the conclusion from your and Dave2002's comments are that long distance train travel can never be competitive with air travel unless there is a high degree of subsidy (though there already is that on UK railways - more than there was under British Rail) and unless short-haul air travel is made more expensive by an environmental surcharge to reflect its greater emissions per passenger ratio. I suspect the latter will be made impossible for electoral reasons: which government will dare introduce a tax e.g. doubling the cost of inter-European air transport?

Indeed, although another reason for putting such an idea out to grass is that the air lobbyists and airlines will quite reasonably expect the government to press for similar charges to be imposed upon all other forms of public transport - taxis, coaches, buses, trains and the like and, although a few coaches and buses are relatively environmentally friendly, few taxis are and most trains are not.

What I was thinking about greater rail investment was really about smaller-scale discrete projects to tackle particular problems like overcrowding on certain routes, the rail electrification of the main London-Wales line (which is now going to happen), increase and improvement in rolling stock, extending station platforms to accommodate longer trains where necessary, etc. So mainly about trying to improve the infrastructure. And also of course replacing the franchise system*. Since no rail network can ever pay for itself and will need extensive state expenditure, just as roads do, it should be considered as a public service and one which is worth spending money on for its environmental benefits (compared with road and air transport) alone - it is necessary for reducing road congestion and the country's carbon emissions. So I would be in favour of renationalisation of rail though since only the Greens (among parties I am able to vote for) have it as a policy I'm not expecting it to happen any time soon. And needless to say, HS2 is supported by all the main parties despite the very mixed reaction to it among the public and from economists and industry professionals.

But we have a road tax in addition to other non-hypothecated taxes that are (supposedly) allocated to expenditure on the country's road network, whereas the same could hardly happen for the rail network, because imposing extra taxes on already prohibitively expensive rail fares would simply and swiftly drive people off the rails (if you see what I mean).

Almost all forms of public and private transportation have negative environmental impact of one kind and/or another, although it varies in degree, of course; even if solar power boosted electric motor vehicles were ever to become the norm, the entire rail network to be electrified and electric planes to be developed (at least for short-haul flights), the manufacture, maintenance and eventual disposal of all of these would have a negative environmental impact, albeit a far smaller one than we have become accustomed to today. Road congestion will not be materially reduced by allocating extra state funding to the rail network, because the latter would have to be made so competitive with road transport on price that the income from fares would never even begin to cover the requirements.

As I mentioned, it doesn't much matter who runs the rail network (and I'm no advocate of the current franchising system) or even how efficiently they do so, it will still be incredibly expensive and one can no more run it on a combination of net income from drastically reduced fares and allocations of taxes than one can expect to run an opera house or concert hall from net ticket revenues even if all performances are sold out; there is also the time factor to be taken into consideration - if it's noticeably quicker by air or road than by train (which of course is not always the case by any means), some people won't be tempted to use the train even if it's competitively priced.