High Speed Two: fair and affordable? (part 2)

In January I looked at the practice of high speed rail operators in Europe charging premium rates for travel, and contrasted this with Greengauge 21‘s pronouncements about ticket pricing on HS2 (“there will be not be premium fares”).

In general, fares on very high speed trains should be higher than conventional ones, because of the increased costs involved, and the higher externalities.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Experts have questioned the safety of China’s high-speed railways. An executive at a non-Chinese high-speed train manufacturer said running trains above speeds of 330 kilometers an hour poses safety concerns and higher costs. At that speed threshold, wheels slip so much that you need bigger motors and significantly more electricity to operate. There is also so much wear on the tracks that costs for daily inspections, maintenance and repairs go up sharply. That’s why in Europe, Japan and Korea no operators run trains above 320 kilometers an hour

Tickets for Chinese high-speed trains can be twice as expensive as the highest-class tickets on regular-speed trains. In the same article, Sheng Guangzu, head of China’s Ministry of Railways, stated that

“Trains operating at 350 kilometers an hour require twice as much energy as those operating at 200 kilometers an hour”

It follows that if users of very high speed trains are charged the same as users of conventional trains – when the costs of these services are very different – there must be additional subsidies allocated to the high speed rail users. So in practice, “no-premium-fares-on-HS2” means users of conventional trains subsidising the consumption of high speed travellers, through higher fares. A sort of ‘Robin Hood in reverse’ situation.