Comments on: The unlikely boons of longer train journeys

By: Andreas Moser

Andreas Moser — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:25:50 +0000

If you want to enjoy train journeys, don’t get married: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/why-dont-you-get-married/

By: Andreas Moser

Andreas Moser — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:24:58 +0000

I love to read on trains, so I really don’t mind the length of the journey that much, as long as I don’t have to change trains too often.

By: Stew Green

Stew Green — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:49:13 +0000

- There seem to be very strong arguments that passenger rail has never been profitable, so it’s not sustainable .. & they are only really viable as an add-on to profitable freight routes. – You guys should get to the bottom of the maths sometime.

By: Joe D

Joe D — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:25:16 +0000

@CdrJameson: not that simple. Trains can take a long distance to stop. You therefore need to make sure that there is always enough distance between trains that one can’t ever crash into the back of the train in front of it. The higher the speed, the longer it takes to slow down, the bigger the gap that has to be left between trains, and so fewer services can be timetabled and capacity is therefore relatively low. (It’s actually not even *this* simple, but that’s the basic idea…)

At its most basic, it’s pretty much the same reason that the M25 now has variable speed limits: when traffic is heavy you can lower the speed limit, the 2 second rule will mean that vehicles will bunch up closer together, and so more of them will fit on the road.

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:35:14 +0000

The overwhelming evidence suggests that shortening journey times actually increases the time spent travelling rather than reduces it because it causes/allows some people to make journeys that they would not otherwise have made at all.

By: CdrJameson

CdrJameson — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:00:04 +0000

The lot of the individual commuter sounds like a red herring to me – surely the benefit of faster trains is that they can go back and forth more times in one day, which increases capacity. The reduced time (journey and waiting) for each individual is just a pleasant side-effect. Or an excuse to charge you more.

By: Julian

Julian — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:17:42 +0000

In an interview with Alison Munro from HS2 on the BBC More or Less show, they addressed this point and she basically argued that you can value time in different ways, which changes other assumptions, and the numbers come out roughly the same in either case. (That’s a terrible summary I’ve made there but I thought she came across as being able to defend the modelling reasonably well). Here’s the podcast http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0196v3z
= = =
[TH Comment: Indeed, Julian - I was the interviewer.]

By: Benoit

Benoit — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:58:50 +0000

2026!? By then, even the Sagrada Familia will be completed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia).

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:11:46 +0000

The overcrowding of London & Birmingham trains at extortionate fares indicates that more capacity is demanded.

Capacity is available at the cost of despoiling the Chilterns.

How on earth are we to determine whether it is worth it or not? At a storming 250mph my guess is that if HS2 is built we will wonder how we ever did without it.

By: robbieC

robbieC — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:46:53 +0000

The problem the HS2 debate is the inconvenient truth there is a HS1:there is nothing being said, that was not said when this was built – except to note that the Chilterns are hugely inferior to the North Downs! I think all the calculations and assumptions in the world are inferior to observation – HS1 is busy and now carries most ppl to London from Ashford (not me now – priced off but find the now un-busy clockwork train less stressed).