Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: nightporter on August 21, 2019, 11:19:07 am
-
The government is launching a review of high-speed rail link HS2 - with a “go or no-go" decision to be made by the end of the year,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49420332
-
Absolute madness.
The way the bond markets are at the moment, the Govt can effectively borrow to fund this interest free. And it would then be a national asset for 150 years.
But how does that help Johnson provide tax cuts for the rich, or line the pockets of the City spivs who put him in No10?
-
I wonder which of his Eton chums would get to buy Donny's HS2 college building cheap and then sell it off to foreign ownership for a massive profit. ?
-
There is a question as to whether it's the best project, but projects are needed. I'd argue Northern high speed rail to be a greater option etc. But with the costs sunk already etc it's crazy to cancel it arguably.
-
We should be doing both. Our transport infrastructure is decades behind the rest of Western Europe.
-
Scrape (sorry.......scrap) the thing.
Not required.
Allocate the money to something worthwhile like the NHS.
We all need the NHS at sometime in our lives but not too many of us need to get to London twenty minutes faster than we can do now.
Massive white elephant.
-
It's OK, Boris promised the NHS that extra £350mill a week after we've left the EU. He's a man of his word...isn't he?
-
It's not about the speed, Hound, although that helps. I've got a meeting the other side of London tomorrow at 9, and I'm having to go down there tonight to be sure if making it on time. You might not have to do that often. Fir me and many other people, it's a regular occurrence.)
But what it really is about is capacity. Our system has had very little investment in it for decades and we need to look ahead to the rail network we need for the second half of the 21st century. The network is already running close to capacity and it needs upgrading. We can bodge and make do with what we've got but that means built-in inefficiency.
The problem your post illuminates is that there's a belief it has to be either this or the NHS. That's nonsense. It can and should be both. Borrowing to pay for capital investment in a train system that will serve us till the end of the 22nd century, when Govt bond rates are pretty much zero is an utter no-brainer. And it has nothing whatsoever with current account spending on the NHS.
-
BST, are you sure it is because of the time taken from Doncaster to Stevenage, or the journey from there on to your meeting that can make you late.
-
It's not about the speed, Hound, although that helps. I've got a meeting the other side of London tomorrow at 9, and I'm having to go down there tonight to be sure if making it on time. You might not have to do that often. Fir me and many other people, it's a regular occurrence.)
But what it really is about is capacity. Our system has had very little investment in it for decades and we need to look ahead to the rail network we need for the second half of the 21st century. The network is already running close to capacity and it needs upgrading. We can bodge and make do with what we've got but that means built-in inefficiency.
The problem your post illuminates is that there's a belief it has to be either this or the NHS. That's nonsense. It can and should be both. Borrowing to pay for capital investment in a train system that will serve us till the end of the 22nd century, when Govt bond rates are pretty much zero is an utter no-brainer. And it has nothing whatsoever with current account spending on the NHS.
I get your point about being on time for your meeting BST but even with HS2, would you seriously trust it enough to get you to your meeting on time if you set off on the same morning?
There is still every chance that you could be delayed so you would probably go down there the night before anyway.
Do i use the trains and do I have to be in London for 9am meetings?
No I don’t and never have had to and I bet that the percentage of population that does is minuscule.
Unlike the 100% of people who need the NHS for the welfare of themselves and their family.
HS2 is designed to benefit a very small group of people and will be so expensive that the main users will be people on business expenses, over and over again.
The general train user will still use the trains we have now.
Scrap HS2.
-
Good. A total waste of money. Destroying peoples homes and decimating our few remaining ancient woodlands and countryside. far too much of this sort of thing happening.
-
Selby.
I live in Sheffield and am travelling from there, so Stevenage has nothing to do with it.
Hound. If you don't use trains at that time, how can you be so sure that the number of people who do is miniscule? The trains from Sheffield arriving at London by 10-ish are invariably packed by the time they've picked up at Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby and Leicester.
And yes, of course it is business travel. People travelling on business to make the money that will pay your pension. We need to make it easier, not harder to do that.
AL. And yet, you drive. Perhaps we should dig up all the moterways and plant trees on them?
-
It's OK, Boris promised the NHS that extra £350mill a week after we've left the EU. He's a man of his word...isn't he?
...if the word starts with c and ends in t yes !
-
By the time it’s due to be completed hardly any one will be travelling to meetings it will be done on line,FaceTime etc . Getting to London 20 minutes quicker or billions to the NHS ,it’s an absolute no brainier. Also “BST “ by the time it’s supposed to be completed I very much doubt that you’ll have much need of it ,it’s over 10 years away from it’s due completion date and if you can remember Billy Stubbs playing you must be over 45 ,so you will more than likely be retired or close to it
-
I assume you’re discounting the thousands of jobs this project creates
I agree however with the sentiment re woodlands
-
Selby.
I live in Sheffield and am travelling from there, so Stevenage has nothing to do with it.
Hound. If you don't use trains at that time, how can you be so sure that the number of people who do is miniscule? The trains from Sheffield arriving at London by 10-ish are invariably packed by the time they've picked up at Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby and Leicester.
And yes, of course it is business travel. People travelling on business to make the money that will pay your pension. We need to make it easier, not harder to do that.
AL. And yet, you drive. Perhaps we should dig up all the moterways and plant trees on them?
I have contributed enough to the system over my 48 years of working life to pay for other people’s pensions so I am due a bit back I think.
There are still far more people who need the services of the NHS than actually need the services of HS2 regardless of how busy the 10am train into London is.
I am assuming that due to the high cost of building HS2 that the prices for that service will be considerably higher than the standard service that you use now so how many of those packed onto the service available now will switch to HS2?
Also, to answer your question, regardless of how busy your train will be, the numbers using it WILL be minuscule when compared to the number of people who have to use the services of the NHS.
As Draytonian said, in the future, and now as well if truth be told, why do people have to travel to meetings?
I know lots of people who use conference calls and face time rather than travelling.
-
You ever tried having an all-day meeting by conference call or one involving a large group of people?
-
It's not long since that businessmen use to pay extra to be stuck in a siding in a sleeper carriage to get away from the wife for a bit longer. The country is simply not big enough to accomodate a proper nights kip while the trains still travelling!
-
You ever tried having an all-day meeting by conference call or one involving a large group of people?
You’re all day meetings must be very important if those 20 minutes will make or break them !!!
-
You ever tried having an all-day meeting by conference call or one involving a large group of people?
You’re all day meetings must be very important if those 20 minutes will make or break them !!!
.......yep, billions of pounds to save twenty minutes.
-
I wonder how they go on in big countries where it takes longer than 4 hours 20 mins to travel the 393 miles from their capital to the country next doors capital?
-
Anyone got a free brick wall for me to talk to?
Once again. It is not a question of HS2 or NHS. We can afford both, comfortably.
Hound. I don't doubt that you paid in. But that was paying the last generation's pensions. It's us still working who pay your current pension.
-
The issue is whether the money spent on HS2 could be better used elsewhere in the rail network.
For the cost of HS2 you could refurbish large sections of the creaking Victorian infrastructure on the existing network, avoiding the massive landtake and disruption HS2 requires.
The other point is that in slightly improving journey times to London, you advantage the SE economy and amplify the regional imbalance in the UK economy.
Nobody disputes that the rail network needs a reboot....but where are the real priorities?
In the current system of private provision, the benefits would be fodder for the private TOC's...Branson and the like.
Before deciding on HS2, we need to think about ownership of the network going forward!
-
Anyone got a free brick wall for me to talk to?
Once again. It is not a question of HS2 or NHS. We can afford both, comfortably.
Hound. I don't doubt that you paid in. But that was paying the last generation's pensions. It's us still working who pay your current pension.
BST, I know about how state pensions are funded.
My kids will pay yours.
No different.
The commonly acknowledged struggling NHS would like to know where the money is that we can easily afford.
Jeez.
-
Hound.
Yes, of course your kids will. Which is why it's imperative that we strengthen our economy. Which is why I've been so pissed off for so many years over Brexit and Austerity which are both making us poorer.
The biggest failing of the past decade has been the Tories' obsession with slashing capital spending. Which leaves us with out of date infrastructure while so many other countries are investing in theirs. Spending large amounts on infrastructure when the Govt can borrow effectively for free is an absolute no-brainer. In the short term, the money gets recycled in the economy which boosts economic performance through the multiplier effect, which is Economics 101. In the long term, we have better infrastructure for the future economy.
And the ONLY way we can afford more on the NHS long-term is if we have a stronger economic performance. That's why being penny-pinching on investment in HS2, delaying HS2, cancelling the East Mids electrification, having historically shocking levels of house building, slashing budgets for school buildings and not investing in the cable network and green energy is really, really bad governance in both the short and long term.
But of course, the real reason Johnson wants to cancel HS2 is that it's a popular decision with his core supporters. And that is all he cares about.
-
By the way, even if the very highest estimates of the cost of HS2 are correct, it comes to 0.25% of GDP per year for the 15 year project. And then we've got a capability for 150 years.
Or, look at it another way. The economic output we've already lost because of the slowdown in growth since the Brexit vote would pay for both HS2 and HS3.
-
Selby.
I live in Sheffield and am travelling from there, so Stevenage has nothing to do with it.
Hound. If you don't use trains at that time, how can you be so sure that the number of people who do is miniscule? The trains from Sheffield arriving at London by 10-ish are invariably packed by the time they've picked up at Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby and Leicester.
And yes, of course it is business travel. People travelling on business to make the money that will pay your pension. We need to make it easier, not harder to do that.
AL. And yet, you drive. Perhaps we should dig up all the moterways and plant trees on them?
Fine by me. Maybe it could spur on a resurgence in British bicycle manufacturing after Brexit. We could learn much of self sufficiency from the great works of Enver Hoxha.
-
Anything to cut London off from the rest of the country!
-
Anything to cut London off from the rest of the country!
It's like another country down there nowadays in any case.
-
Anything to cut London off from the rest of the country!
It's like another country down there nowadays in any case.
It was when I lived there twenty years ago and one of the reasons I was happy to get out and back north again.
-
Anything to cut London off from the rest of the country!
It's like another country down there nowadays in any case.
It was when I lived there twenty years ago and one of the reasons I was happy to get out and back north again.
If I knew then what I know now I would have moved to somewhere like Cambridgeshire years ago. Not bad for access to London without the stress of living there. Some really nice villages down there, but very pricey nowadays.
-
You ever tried having an all-day meeting by conference call or one involving a large group of people?
You’re all day meetings must be very important if those 20 minutes will make or break them !!!
My point wasn't about the 20 minutes, simply the stupid suggestion that conference call is the answer.
-
Or ANY meeting by conference call. I've never yet had one that is remotely as useful as a face to face meeting.
-
You ever tried having an all-day meeting by conference call or one involving a large group of people?
You’re all day meetings must be very important if those 20 minutes will make or break them !!!
My point wasn't about the 20 minutes, simply the stupid suggestion that conference call is the answer.
.......and my original post on this subject was about the stupid need to get to London twenty minutes quicker.
-
But that's a wrong premise Hound.
1)
Most journeys between large cities will have far bigger time savings than that..
Leeds to Birmingham will come down from 2hrs to 1hr.
Manchester to London 2hrs down to 1hr.
It connects those cities into commutable range.
And that matters. It means it is far more likely that large companies will see the big northern and Midlands cities as connected to the main economic powehouse of the country, which is London, like it or not.
Look at somewhere like Reading. It has exploded economically over the past 25 years as the transport connections to London have improved. With HS2, Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield will be closer or only a few mins further away from London.
2) It's also about expanding capacity. We need massive investment in the rail network to improve capacity for the next century. Yes, you can do that to a limited extent by improving the existing network, but that means decades of engineering works and delays.
-
Does your work have any connections to the rail industry by any chance, as you seem overly keen for it to go ahead . In fact you’re the only person I’ve heard support it well apart from a few MPs and some railway industry folks
-
No it has less than zero to do with the rail industry.
-
Fair enough, I take it you don’t have any not a slim connection with the rail industry
-
I tend to agree in many ways BST, but are there better options than HS2 that could achieve similar at less cost?
-
I'm not so sure that many would support it if their home was subject to a CPO (AKA LEGALISED ROBBERY).
-
Whilst I agree that we need the better infrastructures such as projects like this it does worry me about the investment in one city.
As a country we've become a one city country, convinced that investment in London is the driving force for the economy, at times to the detriment of every other town and city.
-
Anyone got a free brick wall for me to talk to?
Once again. It is not a question of HS2 or NHS. We can afford both, comfortably.
Hound. I don't doubt that you paid in. But that was paying the last generation's pensions. It's us still working who pay your current pension.
You talk a lot of sense and I find your contributions on here very interesting BST, but you are coming over as rather patronising on this subject.
Lots of us have had to get to London for meetings at inconvenient times over the years of our working lives. This problem isn’t exclusive to you.
But in this age of technological advances I do not for one minute believe that the answer to this very mild inconvenience is to spend billions on HS2 which will have a relatively minor positive effect on our economy.
This money could be far better spent on a mixture of social projects (of which there are many) and less expansive rail links such as a main line across the north of England from east coast to west coast.
Although Im reaching the end of my business life I still occasionally have to make a business trip from Skipton (North Yorkshire) to Manchester.
Although I’m within 15 miles of the conurbations of Bradford and Burnley, the journey by train to Manchester is so difficult it verges on farcical.
Let’s think about really investing in the much-hyped ‘Northern Powerhouse’ by allowing business people to get from Leeds to Manchester in a reasonable time rather than wasting billions on chipping 15 minutes (or whatever) off the journey time from South Yorkshire to London.
-
The problem is with a london centric government all we get is promises at election time, big society, northern powerhouse, new cross penines rail.
-
Anyone got a free brick wall for me to talk to?
Once again. It is not a question of HS2 or NHS. We can afford both, comfortably.
Hound. I don't doubt that you paid in. But that was paying the last generation's pensions. It's us still working who pay your current pension.
You talk a lot of sense and I find your contributions on here very interesting BST, but you are coming over as rather patronising on this subject.
Lots of us have had to get to London for meetings at inconvenient times over the years of our working lives. This problem isn’t exclusive to you.
But in this age of technological advances I do not for one minute believe that the answer to this very mild inconvenience is to spend billions on HS2 which will have a relatively minor positive effect on our economy.
This money could be far better spent on a mixture of social projects (of which there are many) and less expansive rail links such as a main line across the north of England from east coast to west coast.
Although Im reaching the end of my business life I still occasionally have to make a business trip from Skipton (North Yorkshire) to Manchester.
Although I’m within 15 miles of the conurbations of Bradford and Burnley, the journey by train to Manchester is so difficult it verges on farcical.
Let’s think about really investing in the much-hyped ‘Northern Powerhouse’ by allowing business people to get from Leeds to Manchester in a reasonable time rather than wasting billions on chipping 15 minutes (or whatever) off the journey time from South Yorkshire to London.
Pancho
It shouldn't be either/or. We should have BOTH HS2 and massive investment in rail in the North. I've said that repeatedly.
-
Scrape (sorry.......scrap) the thing.
Not required.
Allocate the money to something worthwhile like the NHS.
We all need the NHS at sometime in our lives but not too many of us need to get to London twenty minutes faster than we can do now.
Massive white elephant.
I agree hound. 20 mins faster from London to Leeds ( not Doncaster ).
What a total waste of money for the sake of 20 mins, and all the disruption it will cause.
-
Once again.
1) It's not 20 minutes. It's more than 50.
2) It's not just about the times. It's about the massive increase in capacity which means fewer cars on the road and fewer flights.
-
Would imagine that the rail fares on a hs2 train will be double the price of one on the network now.
IMO if we spent the money on the current network we could get close to speeds that hs2 is promising, the daft thing is even if we still go ahead with it, it will be out of date by the time it’s finished, we should be investing in either maglev tech or hyper loop.
-
The plan is not to have higher fares last time I saw. It's because the trains will be so big and there'll be so many, there will be a need to manage the ticket prices sensibly.
They are talking about up to 3000 seats each way per hour between Leeds and London and Manchester and London.
You're not going to fill 12,000 seats pet hour charging them at £200 a pop.
And you might get the increases in speed by tinkering with the existing network. But
a) you won't get the increase in capacity. THAT is the key driver of the need for HS2. You need to look at what the country is going to need, capacity-wise, by 2040 and 2070 and 2100.
b) tinkering with the existing lines isn't cheap or problem-free. The upgrade to the West Coast Mainline in the early 2000s cost £10bn (more than a decade ago) and didn't get remotely close to the speeds or capacity of HS2.
-
South of Doncaster until you get to Grantham there numerous level crossings ,if these were bypassed /closed the present trains could travel at 140mph thus reducing travelling time. The level crossing leave stones and debris close to the rails damaging the wheels etc .
-
But that doesn't increase capacity. And that is the main thing.
Do that as well, by all means. But you'll have a saturated network by 2050 if you only do that.
-
If the issue is increasing capacity then adding more carriages (increasing platform length if needed), and using double deck units (raising bridge clearances) would offer massive increases in passenger capacity per train.
It should be considered when the final cost of HS2 cannot be determined.
Not including project cost over-runs, and a large under-estimate for CPO costs, the final bill will be more than double the original cost benefit analysis.
There is no point in assessing value for money against an economic model that proves to be wildly optimistic.
The UK does not need another Hinckley Point mega project costing the earth.
-
I'll repeat. None of that can come close to the capacity increase that HS2 will bring. AND those changes would lead to a decade of huge disruption on the existing network (as the WCML upgrade did in the 00's).
We can fanny about round the margins as we tend to do in this country. We can see more traffic on what is already the most congested motorway network in Europe. We can go on using grossly polluting internal flights for journeys that would be taken by high-speed train everywhere else in Western Europe. (I've got a meeting in Southampton next week. Got to get there and back in a day. I'm flying from Manchester because it is 40% of the price of the train and means 2 hours less travelling on the day. That is f**king idiocy.)
Or we can invest in infrastructure that will see us well placed into the 2100s, while also boosting the economy immediately through the multiplier effect, and long-term through a step change in connectivity between our major cities. And vastly reduce the environmental effect of long distance travel in the UK.
And, as I say, none of this should be a question of either HS2 or other rail improvements. We should be improving the entire network.
-
BST,
Do you have any evidence that HS2 will add more network capacity than other measures?
I'd be interested to see it if so.
I'm surprised you don't see the need to demonstrate value for money. The original go-ahead was given on the basis of an incorrect economic analysis, hence the National Audit Office revisiting the project.
Are you saying it should go forward whatever the cost?
Not really a good method of delivering infrastructure upgrades, is it.
I do agree about improving the entire network. Part of that improvement is bringing a public asset into full public ownership and control.
-
Albie.
The WCML upgrade lasted for a decade, cost £10bn, massively disrupted services, added about 600 seats per hour between Manchester and London and shaved about 20 minutes off journey times.
Go figure.
-
BST,
You argued that HS2 adds more network capacity than other alternatives.
It certainly does increase carrying capacity on the chosen route, so good for those travelling from Brum to London.
Concentrating resources on a prestige project is easier to support if it brings wider network benefits, but it is difficult to see how other UK routes would be improved as a result.
The project could easily divert funding from elsewhere in the network if the cost over-runs are not controlled.
https://www.ft.com/content/27ab2f5c-a976-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04
Eye watering blank cheque by the look!
The same budget distributed more widely across the network could give a broad range of benefits to other routes.
The point about the cost is central.
Rising CapEx dilutes the business case as presented. The payback period is extended beyond the time assumed under the bid process.
The mechanism for evaluating public sector financial liabilities is undermined.
I take your point about the WCML. The whole process was inefficient. No need to repeat it though.
You did not answer my question about how much you think should be allocated, nor that which looked for evidence to support your claim.
Be a good lad and back up your claim......"go figure" is not a helpful response.
-
One last question on this subject BST do you have any connection with the railway system in this country,because you seem to he skirting around the issue when it’s been raised before
-
I'm sorry Albie, it's been really hot today and I'm too tired to deconstruct another one of you blunderbuss posts.
You seem to have major concerns on the principle of cost control on HS2. But you don't extend that to other potential projects.
You just wave away the experience of WCML where costs and timescales ballooned and the end product was, at best, marginal improvements (because improvements to existing infrastructure is always more difficult and more expensive than new build.)
You seem to buy into the Tory line that investment in capital infrastructure in one area inevitably means not investing in another (that's why they indefinitely shelved the electrification of the East Coast Mainline above Leicester, and the GWR past Cardiff.
So, if you'll excuse me, given that I've presented a lot of data here which is just being ignored, I'll pass on arguing with you over this until it's clear what you are actually arguing about.
-
Do you mean, when I said that I have zero connection with the rail industry, that I was skirting around the issues? Not really sure how much less skirting around I could be than that. But I'll say it again. I don't have any personal or professional involvement with the rail industry, other than using trains regularly and having a feeling of national shame at the state of our national transport infrastructure.
-
For someone who has no connection with the rail industry you seem to be very well read on the subject
-
I read widely on a lot of subjects.
-
I’m pleased for you
-
Thank you. Was there a point you wanted to make?
-
By the way Albie. You were asking how much we should be spending. Again I don't know if you mean on HS2 or on infrastructure in general, but my gut feeling is that a sane UK Govt would be spending at least £20bn/year more, ideally £40-50bn more than we actually are spending on capital investment. That'd be an extra 1-2% of GDP. Which would be investment for the future benefit of the country, as well as Keynesian stimulus to get us out of the worst decade of economic growth for 150 years.
That £50bn would, if I ruled the world, go probably something like £7bn/year on strategic rail, £2-3bn/year on local/light rail/metro systems £15bn/year on housing, £20bn/year on green energy and the rest on schools, cable network and roads.
-
For someone who has no connection with the rail industry you seem to be very well read on the subject
I think that BST is in some way connected to a political party and his work involves that.
-
Another one wrong.
Why not engage with the arguments rather than assume everyone has hidden motives?
I'm not sure how much plainer I can be. I don't have ANY links to the rail industry. I'm a member of the Labour party but I don't work for it.
I care about the infrastructure of the country because I want to live in a decent, modern, successful nation.
Do you folk regularly get deceived and assume everyone is trying to cheat you?
-
Well I got the first part of my guess right.
-
I've made that pretty clear over the years. Should also be pretty clear that I strongly disagree with a good few of their policies.
What with that and the fact that your second part was miles off, I've no idea where this is going.
-
If you have mentioned it over the years I haven’t noticed it BST.
But then again I generally avoid the political threads on here so don’t read much of what you write on them.
I only got to posting on this one because I am vehemently opposed to the waste of money that is HS2.
-
Hound.
Then, like I say, engage with the arguments and don't go looking for false agendas.
Feel free to give your reasons for being vehemently opposed to HS2.
-
Billy stated early doors that he lives in Sheffield, that's where the self interest comes in. The Pinch points at Hitchin, Peterborough and Rossington can be ironed out on the ECML they are already up grading signalling, once the new trains can travel at 140 mph you will be looking at Kings Cross to Doncaster in less than 75 minutes.we don't need HS2. We do need better Coast to Coast east to west services and that where the money should be spent.
-
And, once again Sorry, I think we should be spending on HS2 AND HS3, AND improvements to existing lines.
It's truly astonishing how folk insist on seeing only what they want someone to be saying.
-
Fascinating responses here.
You disagree with me, therefore you are arguing in bad faith. It's not about facts and evidence and honest opinions. You've got some selfish interest in this and that's why you disagree with me.
Is this what we've come to?
-
It could be argued that you have the selfish interest BST.
You have told us that you use the trains quite a lot so I can see why you would want HS2 to go ahead.
There are plenty of people who don’t want HS2 to go ahead but you are the one who keeps arguing against everyone.
There isn’t a bottomless pit of money to provide HS2, improve all the other services, improve schools, prop up the NHS etc etc etc.
-
Hound
Like someone else pointed out, by the time HS2 gets to Sheffield, I'll be knocking on for retirement.
As I've said multiple times, I was HS2 and 3, and lots of other infrastructure investment because it's what the future economy of the country needs. We've had decades of underinvestment in infrastructure and we needs decades of additional investment to correct that.
Very telling though that you assume people only act out of selfish interest.
Regarding cost, I assume you know that our spends considerably less on capital investment that the OECD average and way, WAY less than countries like Denmark or Sweden. Are they debt-ridden, backward, benighted hell-holes?
The fact is that we can and should be spending on ALL the infrastructure that we need. And in the permanently depressed economy that we have (we've had ONE year in the past 12 where growth has hit the long term average) it is actually economic stupidity not to make that investment, because it pays for itself.
But you keep telling yourself I'm lying to you about my motives, eh?
-
By the way, I'll say again for the umpteenth time. Spending on capital investment (like railways) does not in any way compromise our ability to pay for current spending (like the education or NHS budget).
So your opposition to HS2 is based on a simple misunderstanding of Govt economics.
-
....and once again the news tells us that the costings for HS2 have been massively understated, surprise surprise.
But hey, let’s just crack on with it, it doesn’t matter how much it is going to cost.
-
What about all the damage to the countryside? I don't want to live in a concrete jungle full of roads, railways, dreary concrete blocks of flats etc.
-
Billy Goat Gruff,
What you are really saying is that you disagree with the method used by the DfT to evaluate projects for value, the cost benefit analysis.
Fair enough, a new government could change the methodology.
But HS2 was approved under the present rules. This is a problem if it then proves that the business case was dependent upon costs that were massaged down, in order to get approval.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49482701
I agree that Borump needs to park this pending an election, as it is a vote loser for him. I expect him to push it through if he is still in power afterwards. He likes the big statement project.
Here is the Labour response;
https://labour.org.uk/press/government-knew-hs2-overspend-mcdonald-responds/
I am open to the case for high speed rail. I just don't think it should by-pass the rules.
-
BST
To say that we should be investing in HS2.... AND cross-country east coast to west cost rail improvements .... AND improving the NHS .... AND investing more in schools..... AND etc etc.
What planet are you living on?
Where I’m living:
We’ve had to help our village school financially because it couldn’t pay for swimming lessons for its pupils;
Our two local libraries have closed due to lack of funding and insufficient volunteers to run them;
The local council can’t afford to clear litter from the roadsides so we have a group of volunteers who do a monthly ‘litter-pick’;
A rural bus service has been withdrawn in our area because the number of passengers didn’t make the service profitable;
Three post offices in ours and our neighbouring villages have closed in the last four years because the people running them could no longer make a living. Old folk in our village now rely on friendly neighbours to collect their pensions;
Our local hospital has just issued a status report which declares it is ‘over-burdened’ and ‘beyond capacity’.
This is the primary maternity and A & E hospital in our district.
And we are talking about spending billions to reduce the travel time by rail from Yorkshire to London.
If we can do HS2 AND all these other things, how do we afford them?
And why aren’t we doing them already?
This is the reality in my world. I look forward to moving to Cloud Cuckoo Land at some future point.
-
Has that magic money tree suddenly sprouted.
Hallelujah.
-
Pancho
2 things.
1) There is no connection between the capital budget (for infrastructure) and the current budget (for paying for recurring things that leave nothing tangible). So, massive capital investment in infrastructure is perfectly possible without affecting current spending. In fact, massive infrastructure investment helps increase the money available for the current budget today (through the multiplier effect) and in the future (because it increases our ability to work efficiently and make money).
2) Schools and council budgets have been slashed viciously over the past decade by this Tory Govt. It wasn't necessary. It was a political choice by them, based on idiotic economics. It didn't have to happen, it shouldn't have happened and it can be reversed tomorrow if the political will is there. But, if you want to be able to pay for schools in 50 years time, you damn well better invest in infrastructure today. Otherwise, in 50 years time, your economy is a basket case and you can't afford anything.
The basic problem is viewing national Govt spending like a household budget. It's not. It has far greater effects. When Govt spends on infrastructure, it massively boosts the economy, increases growth, puts more money into circulation and creates a positive cycle. When interest rates are zero, like now, it is insane for Govts not to borrow to invest in infrastructure.
-
BST
To say that we should be investing in HS2.... AND cross-country east coast to west cost rail improvements .... AND improving the NHS .... AND investing more in schools..... AND etc etc.
What planet are you living on?
Where I’m living:
We’ve had to help our village school financially because it couldn’t pay for swimming lessons for its pupils;
Our two local libraries have closed due to lack of funding and insufficient volunteers to run them;
The local council can’t afford to clear litter from the roadsides so we have a group of volunteers who do a monthly ‘litter-pick’;
A rural bus service has been withdrawn in our area because the number of passengers didn’t make the service profitable;
Three post offices in ours and our neighbouring villages have closed in the last four years because the people running them could no longer make a living. Old folk in our village now rely on friendly neighbours to collect their pensions;
Our local hospital has just issued a status report which declares it is ‘over-burdoned’ and ‘beyond capacity’.
This is the primary maternity and A & E hospital in our district.
And we are talking about spending billions to reduce the travel time by rail from Yorkshire to London.
If we can do HS2 AND all these other things, how do we afford them?
And why aren’t we doing them already?
This is the reality in my world. I look forward to moving to Cloud Cuckoo Land at some future point.
It's simple.
We use MONEY.
And if you think that's a flippant answer, it's not.
We have access to the money that would easily pay for all of these things.
We aren't providing for the things you mention because the Tory government have chosen not to.
Edit: BST beat me to it with his more thorough reply.
-
No TT. Yours is much more to the point.
-
Here's the political context.
When a country borrows a lot, the way it deals with it over the next couple of generations is by high inflation. You basically deal with debt by making it smaller compared to the cost of everything else. But that eats into the value of the savings of the rich. So the Tories don't want borrowing.
Pancho - THAT is why your school and buses and council facilities are f**ked.
-
BST
To say that we should be investing in HS2.... AND cross-country east coast to west cost rail improvements .... AND improving the NHS .... AND investing more in schools..... AND etc etc.
What planet are you living on?
Where I’m living:
We’ve had to help our village school financially because it couldn’t pay for swimming lessons for its pupils;
Our two local libraries have closed due to lack of funding and insufficient volunteers to run them;
The local council can’t afford to clear litter from the roadsides so we have a group of volunteers who do a monthly ‘litter-pick’;
A rural bus service has been withdrawn in our area because the number of passengers didn’t make the service profitable;
Three post offices in ours and our neighbouring villages have closed in the last four years because the people running them could no longer make a living. Old folk in our village now rely on friendly neighbours to collect their pensions;
Our local hospital has just issued a status report which declares it is ‘over-burdoned’ and ‘beyond capacity’.
This is the primary maternity and A & E hospital in our district.
And we are talking about spending billions to reduce the travel time by rail from Yorkshire to London.
If we can do HS2 AND all these other things, how do we afford them?
And why aren’t we doing them already?
This is the reality in my world. I look forward to moving to Cloud Cuckoo Land at some future point.
It's simple.
We use MONEY.
And if you think that's a flippant answer, it's not.
We have access to the money that would easily pay for all of these things.
We aren't providing for the things you mention because the Tory government have chosen not to.
Edit: BST beat me to it with his more thorough reply.
Ah yes, of course, silly me.
We use money.
All this money that the Government have been secretly hiding away for a rainy day.
Are you saying we should borrow all the billions required for HS2 plus the other billions to sort out the issues I mentioned in my post above?
And if we ‘invest’ these billions in HS2 will we reap the benefits in the future thanks to the huge boost to our economy because we can get to London more quickly?
Do we have to get to London to reach this pot of gold at the end of the HS2 rainbow?
Or could we generate more business up here in the north without the need to travel down south?
-
The reality is that we don’t have the money to resolve all of the issues facing us, thanks to huge mis-management of the country’s finances over the last 10 years or more.
We should cut our losses on HS2 and channel that money into much more important priorities.
-
Pancho.
If we build HS2 and HS3 over 20 years, it will amount to 0.4% of GDP per year.
AND, nearly all of that will go straight into the UK economy. Into the pockets of steel bashers and concreters and engineers and designers. Who will spend in and thereby support and create more jobs.
It's Economics 101. But we've been bullshitted for a decade by this rabble that it is not possible. They are wrong. It's entirely possible if you have the political will.
-
I am more and more convinced that BST is a very active member of the Labour Party.
-
That makes sense Hound. A bloke who thinks spending billions on a new railway is a priority to a country that won't have any food on its shelves sounds about right.
-
And you're wrong again Hound.
Like I say. Engage with the arguments instead of (badly) trying to guess a hidden agenda.
-
And you're wrong again Hound.
Like I say. Engage with the arguments instead of (badly) trying to guess a hidden agenda.
We only have your word that I am wrong though.
You would say that anyway.
You are so in favour of HS2, more so than anyone else on here and jump on any posts that say otherwise.
-
Is this how you operate Hound? Assume that everyone is lying to you?
That's very telling.
-
Is this how you operate Hound? Assume that everyone is lying to you?
That's very telling.
Not everyone.
-
Just people who say things you disagree with then eh?
-
Is this how you operate Hound? Assume that everyone is lying to you?
That's very telling.
In fairness 70% of the main forum appear to operate this way if you read their reaction to anything said by Martin or the club itself.
-
I'm just fascinated by Hound. He's an intelligent, rational person. I'm assuming he's got some reason for assuming I'm lying. Me, I assume people are liars if I see evidence of them lying. I wonder what Hound's reason is here.
-
I'm just fascinated by Hound. He's an intelligent, rational person. I'm assuming he's got some reason for assuming I'm lying. Me, I assume people are liars if I see evidence of them lying. I wonder what Hound's reason is here.
BST, thanks for your kind words.
Lying is a strong and emotional word and I would prefer not to use it in the context of our conversation about what you do or do not do.
My thoughts on your occupation are brought about by the way in which you strongly reject any points of view that objectors to HS2 have.
Also in the way you write with considerable knowledge about Parliamentary procedure.
You told me that you are a member of the Labour Party but don’t agree with all of their policies.
In my working life, at the times when I wasn’t working for my own Company, I didn’t always agree with Company policy (of the businesses that I was working for) but in the senior roles that I held I cracked on and did my job despite that.
It crossed my mind that you could actually be an MP or someone quite high up in the Labour Party but would not want to own up to that on this forum for many reasons.
On every thread on this forum which is connected to a political theme you are very prominent and have very strong, and anti government, views.
If you were and chose not to tell us then I would totally understand why you would do so.
-
Hound.
I'm not an MP. I'm not high up or a five in the Labour party. I just pay my subs because, on balance, I prefer them to the others.
I'm very interested in politics and economics so I read voraciously on both topics, although my profession isn't connected with either.
I take back my comment about you accusing me of lying. It's just frustrating when honest discussion provokes that sort of response.
-
HS2 railway to be delayed by up to five years...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49563549
-
I like the option of HS2 but only if it could have a route that benefited the North and the route was not decided by politicians but by independent transport planners.
Public transport has to be the answer in an increasingly overcrowded world, but I don't comment too much about it as I'm not across any of the detail
-
HS2 railway to be delayed by up to five years...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49563549
I expect the costs will continue to rise upwards, alongside the timeframe to delivery.
There needs to be a discussion on how a new government looks to assess the cost benefit analysis of major projects. The current rules tempt bidders to creative accounting in the manner of the HS2 project.
Perhaps Jonathan Pie got it right in his satirical take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQUglnEmhOc
-
Great news.
I find it hard to believe that the original plans did not account for building through densely populated areas.
-
I like the option of HS2 but only if it could have a route that benefited the North and the route was not decided by politicians but by independent transport planners.
Public transport has to be the answer in an increasingly overcrowded world, but I don't comment too much about it as I'm not across any of the detail
Speaking of fast trains I'm on the SJ fast train from Copenhagen to Stockholm which is about 325 miles takes around 5hrs 15mins and is costing 56 Euro, fast trains have to be the answer.
-
That's slower than Kings cross to Edinburgh!
-
That's slower than Kings cross to Edinburgh!
And your point is?
-
I've been on a train to Stockholm :
it was fast , a good quality carriage ,plenty of room and relatively cheap
- how it should be.
we need more capacity, HS2 and re-nationalisation
-
I've been on a train to Stockholm :
it was fast , a good quality carriage ,plenty of room and relatively cheap
- how it should be.
we need more capacity, HS2 and re-nationalisation
I think there would be few that could disagree with you there fb, bad service and high prices despite public money still being put in. It's like get first get hold of a franchise and then get the lawyers and accountants in to work out a way to extract money from the public purse to give you a profit.
-
What I fail to comprehend is why whilst ripping up half of Mexborough they haven't considered building a station there, you wouldn't need the Sheffield loop either
-
The damage caused to the countryside is a price too high to pay for this project for me.
We have the lowest amount of trees in Europe and yet they want to destroy more ancient woodlands to facilitate this. What about the lost wildlife habitats? Surely there is more to life than business meetings and profits?
-
Well apparently is it more important to get to London a few minutes quicker.
-
I'm all for railway modernisation and nationalisation, but HS2 should never had been a go for me, and the amount the budget was underestimated by, and is now currently predicted to be, is staggering :ohmy:
-
HS2 have assigned ecologists to the enabling works, not sure why as the established trees are being felled regardless, only thing that delays it is trying to rehome wildlife
-
HS2 have assigned ecologists to the enabling works, not sure why as the established trees are being felled regardless, only thing that delays it is trying to rehome wildlife
Yeah, as if badgers, foxes and other animals will know that they are being rehomed.
They will more than likely continue to use the same routes that they have always done.
-
HS2 have assigned ecologists to the enabling works, not sure why as the established trees are being felled regardless, only thing that delays it is trying to rehome wildlife
Yeah, as if badgers, foxes and other animals will know that they are being rehomed.
They will more than likely continue to use the same routes that they have always done.
This kind of thing makes me so angry. Don't even get me started on fracking! Who needs earth tremors under their home?
-
I'm currently on a Bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka. The infrastructure this country has is literally breathtaking, and it all works. We can only dream of having something similar as no government, or, it seems, people on this forum would want it.
If you were to experience it I'm sure you would all change your minds. The impact on quality of life would be immense.
-
I don't think it's necessarily a case of people not wanting it SM, it's a case of whether we can afford it given other spending needs.
Enjoy Japan by the way!
-
I'm currently on a Bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka. The infrastructure this country has is literally breathtaking, and it all works. We can only dream of having something similar as no government, or, it seems, people on this forum would want it.
If you were to experience it I'm sure you would all change your minds. The impact on quality of life would be immense.
I’m sure that the people of the UK would object if they had to pay Healthcare Insurance like the working people of Japan do.
How many working UK residents have had to use or will make use of the NHS and it is free for them to do so.
Given the choice of having free use of the NHS or being able to get somewhere a few minutes quicker at the risk of not having free healthcare, which would people prefer.
-
Once again.
There is no link between the current budget and the capital investment budget. Not only CAN we pay for capital investment while still paying for current budget items like the NHS, we HAVE TO spend on capital investment if we're to be able to pay for current budget items in the future.
Here's the thing Hound.
You DON'T get "free healthcare". You get healthcare that is free at the point of use. But it still costs the country to provide it. And although you might not be here in 40 years, the country will still have to pay for it then. And if our productivity decline continues because of a massive failure to invest in capital projects, my kids and your grandkids will curse us when their generation can't find the services that ours can.
-
BST, very obviously I know that the NHS costs country money to provide healthcare, you are using words to suit your argument when you pick out the fact that I said free healthcare.
As you will be aware, the money tree doesn’t exist and we don’t have a big pile of money sat doing nothing.
I am not against money being spent on capital investment but it has to be on things that are totally necessary.
HS2 isn’t totally necessary.
Our NHS is on its arse, every day we hear about cuts in funding and people not being able to access services and medication that would make their quality of life better.
I am sure that riding on a fast train isn’t any consolation to them at all.
-
Well I'm glad we've established that you're not against capital investment, but you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that investing in capital projects does not in any way change our ability to pay for the NHS today.
You do the first by borrowing. At effectively zero interest rate today it is bone-headed stupidity not to do. It pays back immediately through the multiplier effect and long term through improvements in productivity and lower future capital costs. In the case of HS2, that would be through replacing thousands of flights and millions of car journeys over the next century by faster, better and far less environmentally damaging transport.
You pay for the NHS through tax income.
You've consistently supported a party that is wedded to reducing the tax take as a proportion of GDP, and has massively slashed capital spending this decade. Who do you think is responsible for the NHS being on its knees. And how do you propose we develop a more productive economy for our grandkids to inherit?
-
Voting Tory and complaining that public services are shit.
The exact equivalent of punching yourself in the face repeatedly, then complaining that your face hurts.
-
BST, as a Labour Party member you wouldn’t say anything else would you.
I don’t support or have any allegiance to any political party and have voted for Labour in the past.
However I wouldn’t vote for them right now and don’t think I would vote Tory either.
However, bearing in mind that I live in the Borough of Doncaster my vote doesn’t really matter unless I did vote Labour and then it would just increase the number that they win by.
A vote for anyone else is immaterial.
-
Hound, I'm afraid you're completely out of touch here. It's not just about having trains that go a bit faster, it's having a completely organised and integrated transit system that works. You have to experience it to really appreciate just how good and effective it is.
And it's not about the choice of excellent transport systems and health care either. Japan has an excellent system there as well, one where every resident is covered and the government picks up the lions share of the cost. Life expectancy in Japan is the highest in the world, proof that what they have is infinitely better than what we're doing in that regard.
-
SM, it is my understanding that every working person in Japan has to pay medical insurance as well as 30% of any treatment that they may receive in the event of it being needed.
Could you imagine the fuss that would be made if that system was introduced here?
You are probably a regular user of train services so I can understand your position in supporting it.
-
Jesus, imagine living in that world where all anyone ever prioritises is their own immediate needs.
-
SM, it is my understanding that every working person in Japan has to pay medical insurance as well as 30% of any treatment that they may receive in the event of it being needed.
Could you imagine the fuss that would be made if that system was introduced here?
You are probably a regular user of train services so I can understand your position in supporting it.
No, that's not right. 30% is the maximum, and that's what the insurance is for. Don't forget we pay National Insurance in the UK which is a considerable sum these days.
You're obviously not a well travelled person, therefore I'm sure it doesn't matter how many examples are put in front of you you won't see the benefits of doing things differently. But to suggest I'd support it because I travel by train a lot, which I don't by the way, is a ludicrous standpoint.
-
SM, it is my understanding that every working person in Japan has to pay medical insurance as well as 30% of any treatment that they may receive in the event of it being needed.
Could you imagine the fuss that would be made if that system was introduced here?
You are probably a regular user of train services so I can understand your position in supporting it.
No, that's not right. 30% is the maximum, and that's what the insurance is for. Don't forget we pay National Insurance in the UK which is a considerable sum these days.
You're obviously not a well travelled person, therefore I'm sure it doesn't matter how many examples are put in front of you you won't see the benefits of doing things differently. But to suggest I'd support it because I travel by train a lot, which I don't by the way, is a ludicrous standpoint.
Also ludicrous is your very condescending suggestion that I am not well travelled seeing as how you don't know me.
Yes, we pay NI but the Japanese have to pay Medical Insurance which might also be quite expensive PLUS the people then have to also pay (up to) 30% of treatment costs.
-
Jesus, imagine living in that world where all anyone ever prioritises is their own immediate needs.
Have I said anything about prioritising just my own needs.
I have written about the needs of everyone in the UK for further investment in the NHS.
We don’t need HS2.
-
As nobody knows what the final bill for HS2 will be, you cannot show the project offers value for money on the CapEx against other transport expenditure bidding for challenge fund support.
This project could become another "Hinckley Point" white elephant.
Escalating costs, delay to completion, and twice as expensive in use as the cheapest alternative.
It is not sufficient to argue that the CapEx can be afforded.
There has to be an agreed rational way to allocate resources on CapEx projects, which allows comparison of alternatives.
-
SM, it is my understanding that every working person in Japan has to pay medical insurance as well as 30% of any treatment that they may receive in the event of it being needed.
Could you imagine the fuss that would be made if that system was introduced here?
You are probably a regular user of train services so I can understand your position in supporting it.
No, that's not right. 30% is the maximum, and that's what the insurance is for. Don't forget we pay National Insurance in the UK which is a considerable sum these days.
You're obviously not a well travelled person, therefore I'm sure it doesn't matter how many examples are put in front of you you won't see the benefits of doing things differently. But to suggest I'd support it because I travel by train a lot, which I don't by the way, is a ludicrous standpoint.
Also ludicrous is your very condescending suggestion that I am not well travelled seeing as how you don't know me.
Yes, we pay NI but the Japanese have to pay Medical Insurance which might also be quite expensive PLUS the people then have to also pay (up to) 30% of treatment costs.
Condescending? I'm not the one arguing about something I have no experience or knowledge of. But it's quite clear you travel rarely judging by how you always rely on Wikipedia.
-
SM, it is my understanding that every working person in Japan has to pay medical insurance as well as 30% of any treatment that they may receive in the event of it being needed.
Could you imagine the fuss that would be made if that system was introduced here?
You are probably a regular user of train services so I can understand your position in supporting it.
No, that's not right. 30% is the maximum, and that's what the insurance is for. Don't forget we pay National Insurance in the UK which is a considerable sum these days.
You're obviously not a well travelled person, therefore I'm sure it doesn't matter how many examples are put in front of you you won't see the benefits of doing things differently. But to suggest I'd support it because I travel by train a lot, which I don't by the way, is a ludicrous standpoint.
Also ludicrous is your very condescending suggestion that I am not well travelled seeing as how you don't know me.
Yes, we pay NI but the Japanese have to pay Medical Insurance which might also be quite expensive PLUS the people then have to also pay (up to) 30% of treatment costs.
Condescending? I'm not the one arguing about something I have no experience or knowledge of. But it's quite clear you travel rarely judging by how you always rely on Wikipedia.
Well I obviously do have some knowledge about it otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to put forward the information that I did. :facepalm:
And yes, you were and still are being condescending with the last sentence that you wrote.
-
What information is that? The stuff you lifted out of Wikipedia? Do me a favour!!
-
What information is that? The stuff you lifted out of Wikipedia? Do me a favour!!
I see you are still at it then.
-
At what? Stop being a clown.
-
You have a very high perch.
-
You have a very high perch.
Yep.
The Japanese have a very sophisticated, integrated transport system that works incredibly well. It keeps cars and lorries off the road, makes them a very efficient society and gets people around the country at incredible pace. You're arguing against that.
They have an extremely efficient health service that costs the individual very little yet ensures they have the highest life expectancy on the planet, you're arguing against that.
They are a polite society, the streets are spotless, the standard of living is exceptionally high, poverty and homelessness are virtually unheard of, and no doubt, if you could, you'd argue against that as well.
Now, you tell me who's being the difficult one here?
-
I'm currently on a Bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka. The infrastructure this country has is literally breathtaking, and it all works. We can only dream of having something similar as no government, or, it seems, people on this forum would want it.
If you were to experience it I'm sure you would all change your minds. The impact on quality of life would be immense.
I don't think a lot of us are against investments in our infrastructure SM, it's just looking to where those investments might be best placed for the benefit of the whole of the UK and IMO HS2 isn't it. We need significant improvements of bot the rail and road networks East to West far more than shaving off a few minutes between Birmingham and London. I can get from Doncaster to London far quicker with the infrastructure as it is today than I can from Doncaster to Liverpool, (which is nearer), for example.
I used to commute from Southport to Manchester by rail and it was a nightmare - old rolling stock, slow trains and unbelievable congestion.
My eldest Son travels from just outside Bolton to Manchester and it's an absolute nightmare - and he travels outside of peak times! The M60 and M62 are no longer fit for purpose.
It's investment in the North for everyone here that's needed, not a few minutes quicker for businessmen into London!
-
You have a very high perch.
Yep.
The Japanese have a very sophisticated, integrated transport system that works incredibly well. It keeps cars and lorries off the road, makes them a very efficient society and gets people around the country at incredible pace. You're arguing against that.
They have an extremely efficient health service that costs the individual very little yet ensures they have the highest life expectancy on the planet, you're arguing against that.
They are a polite society, the streets are spotless, the standard of living is exceptionally high, poverty and homelessness are virtually unheard of, and no doubt, if you could, you'd argue against that as well.
Now, you tell me who's being the difficult one here?
Point one.
Good for the Japs.
They can probably afford it, we can’t.
I’m couldn’t care less what they do over there and I am not arguing against it.
I am saying that we don’t need HS2 in the UK.
Point two.
Good for the Japs.
They can probably afford it.
Our NHS is on its knees and A&E depts are closing all over the place.
Money we are wasting on HS2 should be going to the NHS instead.
Are you arguing against that?
Point 3.
Far from arguing against point three I wish we could be the same but I would imagine ( I haven’t looked on wiki) that the authorities come down very hard in Japan on antisocial behaviour and crime.
Over here our courts don’t and we don’t have enough Police to control the criminals and hooligans.
Although, the government are investing in 20000 new Police Officers so maybe that will help.
Am I being difficult, no I don’t think so.
Neither have I called you a clown.
Now, are you going to have a pop at Not Now Kato for offering a different opinion to you.
-
Hound
"Point two.
Good for the Japs.
They can probably afford it.
Our NHS is on its knees and A&E depts are closing all over the place.
Money we are wasting on HS2 should be going to the NHS instead.
Are you arguing against that?"
So we come back round again to this wrong headed argument.
-
BST.
NO, the money should be going to the NHS instead of HS2.
I have noticed that you skipped over the post by NNK who also says that he doesn’t think we need HS2.
He says what I have said, that is that money should be spent on improving what we have got rather than blow untold billions on HS2.
-
Hound.
How many times?
There is no link between current spending and capital spending. Doesn't matter how many people say it. It's wrong.
-
Hound.
How many times?
There is no link between current spending and capital spending. Doesn't matter how many people say it. It's wrong.
Oh, so it isn’t me alone that is saying it.
Everyone is wrong except for you then.
I notice you are still dodging NNK.
-
No Hound. It's just when people are wrong they are wrong. And I didn't see NNK's post. But I have pointed this issue out to you multiple times and you keep on repeating an opinion based on a false premise.
-
Sorry BST, but I stand firm on my opinion.
We do not need HS2.
-
That's a separate argument.
But that won't get you a penny extra for the NHS.
-
Well, that is your opinion.......and as for not noticing the post by NNK, it is almost unheard of for you to bypass a post where someone has a different opinion to you on something like HS2.
-
No it's not my opinion. It's simple economics.
Like I said yesterday, capital and current budgets over a period of time come from different sources.
You pay for capital investment (in an era of low interest rates) from borrowing and they pay that back several times over.
You can't pay for current budgets through borrowing for any significant length of time, as there's no payback, and all that you do is build an unsustainable and ever increasing debt. If you DO pay for current budgets through debt today, you have to pay that back by tightening budgets tomorrow. Or by growing the economy. Which needs capital investment.
As for your other, very silly comment...I leave many incorrect posts uncommented on. I'm returning to yours because you're like a dog with a badly wrong bone.
-
Hound.
How many times?
There is no link between current spending and capital spending. Doesn't matter how many people say it. It's wrong.
On this point I fully agree, and whilst you don't reference my post it's clear that's where your finger points.
But you seem to miss the point I made - It's not a case of what you spend, it's where it should be spent. The North has been starved of serious investment while billions have been spent, (and continue to be spent), on London and the home counties. This is outside of any investment that should be being made in the NHS. Maybe I didn't choose my words clearly enough.
I gave just a few examples of the issues in the North, but the same can be said about the South West and Wales. It's the balance of the spend and the bias as to where it's spent and to who's advantage that I criticise. - Unless you believe there's an infinite budget, at which point we would disagree.
I firmly believe that there are greater priorities in UK infrastructure requirements than HS2.
-
No it's not my opinion. It's simple economics.
As for your other, very silly comment...I leave many incorrect posts uncommented on. I'm returning to yours because you're like a dog with a badly wrong bone.
I assume you're referring to my earlier post BST?
If so, see my post immediately preceding this one and tell me if you believe I'm still incorrect; and importantly, why?
-
No it's not my opinion. It's simple economics.
As for your other, very silly comment...I leave many incorrect posts uncommented on. I'm returning to yours because you're like a dog with a badly wrong bone.
I assume you're referring to my earlier post BST?
If so, see my post immediately preceding this one and tell me if you believe I'm still incorrect; and importantly, why?
No NNK. I was referring to Hound.
I fully accept that there are different arguments for priorities in infrastructure spending. And equally, I see no reason why we shouldn't build HS2 and HS3.
France, Spain, Japan, Italy and Germany have all built multiple HS lines. The only problem we have in the UK is stunted ambitions after decades of underinvestment.
-
No it's not my opinion. It's simple economics.
As for your other, very silly comment...I leave many incorrect posts uncommented on. I'm returning to yours because you're like a dog with a badly wrong bone.
I assume you're referring to my earlier post BST?
If so, see my post immediately preceding this one and tell me if you believe I'm still incorrect; and importantly, why?
No NNK. I was referring to Hound.
I fully accept that there are different arguments for priorities in infrastructure spending. And equally, I see no reason why we shouldn't build HS2 and HS3.
France, Spain, Japan, Italy and Germany have all built multiple HS lines. The only problem we have in the UK is stunted ambitions after decades of underinvestment.
Indeed, but the priority should be HS3, widening and an extension to the M18 to take it round the South side of Sheffield and on to Stockport to relieve some of the congestion on the M62. There are many other infrastructure improvements that need to be addressed before trying to shave off a few minutes into London IMO. At the moment the priority, (and therefore the spend), all seems to be centred on London and the Home Counties furthering the economic divide between the North and the South!
-
No it's not my opinion. It's simple economics.
As for your other, very silly comment...I leave many incorrect posts uncommented on. I'm returning to yours because you're like a dog with a badly wrong bone.
I assume you're referring to my earlier post BST?
If so, see my post immediately preceding this one and tell me if you believe I'm still incorrect; and importantly, why?
No NNK. I was referring to Hound.
I fully accept that there are different arguments for priorities in infrastructure spending. And equally, I see no reason why we shouldn't build HS2 and HS3.
France, Spain, Japan, Italy and Germany have all built multiple HS lines. The only problem we have in the UK is stunted ambitions after decades of underinvestment.
Indeed, but the priority should be HS3, widening and an extension to the M18 to take it round the South side of Sheffield and on to Stockport to relieve some of the congestion on the M62. There are many other infrastructure improvements that need to be addressed before trying to shave off a few minutes into London IMO. At the moment the priority, (and therefore the spend), all seems to be centred on London and the Home Counties furthering the economic divide between the North and the South!
What about the untold damage to the countryside and people's homes?
-
NNK.
You're preaching to the converted (although no one is ever going to put a motorway round the south of Sheffield. That requires either a 30 mile tunnel or tarmac-ing the Hope Valley. Ain't going to happen. What's needed is the Stocksbridge-Denton motorway through Woodhead with the Dearne Valley Link Road upgraded to motorway back to the A1.)
Anyway. The issue is that we don't need to prioritise one over the other. There is no reason at all why HS2 and 3 can't happen at the same time. Only political will is stopping it.
As for the London issue, I entirely agree about the economic imbalance. But it's there. It exists. London us always going to be a magnet. What's needed is better transport links to encourage firms to set up outside London but still be in each reach of London. That's what has happened in the M4 corridor. The huge investment in rail links between Reading and London has dragged in loads of major companies to set up in Reading.
-
No it's not my opinion. It's simple economics.
As for your other, very silly comment...I leave many incorrect posts uncommented on. I'm returning to yours because you're like a dog with a badly wrong bone.
I assume you're referring to my earlier post BST?
If so, see my post immediately preceding this one and tell me if you believe I'm still incorrect; and importantly, why?
No NNK. I was referring to Hound.
I fully accept that there are different arguments for priorities in infrastructure spending. And equally, I see no reason why we shouldn't build HS2 and HS3.
France, Spain, Japan, Italy and Germany have all built multiple HS lines. The only problem we have in the UK is stunted ambitions after decades of underinvestment.
Indeed, but the priority should be HS3, widening and an extension to the M18 to take it round the South side of Sheffield and on to Stockport to relieve some of the congestion on the M62. There are many other infrastructure improvements that need to be addressed before trying to shave off a few minutes into London IMO. At the moment the priority, (and therefore the spend), all seems to be centred on London and the Home Counties furthering the economic divide between the North and the South!
What about the untold damage to the countryside and people's homes?
It happens.
How many square miles of countryside have been destroyed through railways compared to airports and the road network? You don't seem to get too upset about us having them.
-
No it's not my opinion. It's simple economics.
As for your other, very silly comment...I leave many incorrect posts uncommented on. I'm returning to yours because you're like a dog with a badly wrong bone.
I assume you're referring to my earlier post BST?
If so, see my post immediately preceding this one and tell me if you believe I'm still incorrect; and importantly, why?
No NNK. I was referring to Hound.
I fully accept that there are different arguments for priorities in infrastructure spending. And equally, I see no reason why we shouldn't build HS2 and HS3.
France, Spain, Japan, Italy and Germany have all built multiple HS lines. The only problem we have in the UK is stunted ambitions after decades of underinvestment.
Indeed, but the priority should be HS3, widening and an extension to the M18 to take it round the South side of Sheffield and on to Stockport to relieve some of the congestion on the M62. There are many other infrastructure improvements that need to be addressed before trying to shave off a few minutes into London IMO. At the moment the priority, (and therefore the spend), all seems to be centred on London and the Home Counties furthering the economic divide between the North and the South!
What about the untold damage to the countryside and people's homes?
It happens.
How many square miles of countryside have been destroyed through railways compared to airports and the road network? You don't seem to get too upset about us having them.
Any building development which takes away green space upsets me. It feels as though we are becoming a concrete jungle. I can't understand why all these industrial units get built and stand there empty. There clearly isn't much need for them.
-
I'm currently on a Bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka. The infrastructure this country has is literally breathtaking, and it all works. We can only dream of having something similar as no government, or, it seems, people on this forum would want it.
If you were to experience it I'm sure you would all change your minds. The impact on quality of life would be immense.
I don't think a lot of us are against investments in our infrastructure SM, it's just looking to where those investments might be best placed for the benefit of the whole of the UK and IMO HS2 isn't it. We need significant improvements of bot the rail and road networks East to West far more than shaving off a few minutes between Birmingham and London. I can get from Doncaster to London far quicker with the infrastructure as it is today than I can from Doncaster to Liverpool, (which is nearer), for example.
I used to commute from Southport to Manchester by rail and it was a nightmare - old rolling stock, slow trains and unbelievable congestion.
My eldest Son travels from just outside Bolton to Manchester and it's an absolute nightmare - and he travels outside of peak times! The M60 and M62 are no longer fit for purpose.
It's investment in the North for everyone here that's needed, not a few minutes quicker for businessmen into London!
Apologies for the delay in responding NNK, I've done a lot of miles in the last few days and jet lag is a bitch.
We're on the same page here, I have never argued for HS2 on this thread or elsewhere (despite Hound basing his whole argument against me on that point), all I've suggested is that an integrated transport policy, which should mean major investment, would benefit all of us. There are obviously priorities in certain places, and the north needs them desperately.
As an example, in Osaka where I spent the last few days, I had a hotel close to the OCAT, https://osaka-info.jp/en/page/ocat-osaka-air-terminal, and then in the morning caught a bus direct to the terminal at Kansai airport. Buses run every 10 minutes, trains every 7/8 minutes or so, and it's a distance of about 32 miles and takes 36 minutes.
On arriving at Manchester airport it felt like arriving in a 3rd world country, it was scruffy, desolate and the train I needed only runs every couple of hours. Admittedly its longer, about 66 miles, but it takes 2 hours, and on a train packed to the rafters with no facilities. The contrast between the two countries and journey's couldn't have been starker. The lack of investment is a disgrace.
-
No it's not my opinion. It's simple economics.
As for your other, very silly comment...I leave many incorrect posts uncommented on. I'm returning to yours because you're like a dog with a badly wrong bone.
I assume you're referring to my earlier post BST?
If so, see my post immediately preceding this one and tell me if you believe I'm still incorrect; and importantly, why?
No NNK. I was referring to Hound.
I fully accept that there are different arguments for priorities in infrastructure spending. And equally, I see no reason why we shouldn't build HS2 and HS3.
France, Spain, Japan, Italy and Germany have all built multiple HS lines. The only problem we have in the UK is stunted ambitions after decades of underinvestment.
Indeed, but the priority should be HS3, widening and an extension to the M18 to take it round the South side of Sheffield and on to Stockport to relieve some of the congestion on the M62. There are many other infrastructure improvements that need to be addressed before trying to shave off a few minutes into London IMO. At the moment the priority, (and therefore the spend), all seems to be centred on London and the Home Counties furthering the economic divide between the North and the South!
What about the untold damage to the countryside and people's homes?
It happens.
How many square miles of countryside have been destroyed through railways compared to airports and the road network? You don't seem to get too upset about us having them.
Any building development which takes away green space upsets me. It feels as though we are becoming a concrete jungle. I can't understand why all these industrial units get built and stand there empty. There clearly isn't much need for them.
Concrete jungle? Do you have any idea how little is actually built on in the UK?
It depends how you measure it, but less than 10% would pretty accurate.
-
I'm currently on a Bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka. The infrastructure this country has is literally breathtaking, and it all works. We can only dream of having something similar as no government, or, it seems, people on this forum would want it.
If you were to experience it I'm sure you would all change your minds. The impact on quality of life would be immense.
I don't think a lot of us are against investments in our infrastructure SM, it's just looking to where those investments might be best placed for the benefit of the whole of the UK and IMO HS2 isn't it. We need significant improvements of bot the rail and road networks East to West far more than shaving off a few minutes between Birmingham and London. I can get from Doncaster to London far quicker with the infrastructure as it is today than I can from Doncaster to Liverpool, (which is nearer), for example.
I used to commute from Southport to Manchester by rail and it was a nightmare - old rolling stock, slow trains and unbelievable congestion.
My eldest Son travels from just outside Bolton to Manchester and it's an absolute nightmare - and he travels outside of peak times! The M60 and M62 are no longer fit for purpose.
It's investment in the North for everyone here that's needed, not a few minutes quicker for businessmen into London!
Apologies for the delay in responding NNK, I've done a lot of miles in the last few days and jet lag is a bitch.
We're on the same page here, I have never argued for HS2 on this thread or elsewhere (despite Hound basing his whole argument against me on that point), all I've suggested is that an integrated transport policy, which should mean major investment, would benefit all of us. There are obviously priorities in certain places, and the north needs them desperately.
As an example, in Osaka where I spent the last few days, I had a hotel close to the OCAT, https://osaka-info.jp/en/page/ocat-osaka-air-terminal, and then in the morning caught a bus direct to the terminal at Kansai airport. Buses run every 10 minutes, trains every 7/8 minutes or so, and it's a distance of about 32 miles and takes 36 minutes.
On arriving at Manchester airport it felt like arriving in a 3rd world country, it was scruffy, desolate and the train I needed only runs every couple of hours. Admittedly its longer, about 66 miles, but it takes 2 hours, and on a train packed to the rafters with no facilities. The contrast between the two countries and journey's couldn't have been starker. The lack of investment is a disgrace.
I agree with every word of this.
I was at a conference in Shizuoka a few years ago. Flew to Nagoya. Metro from the terminal to the Shikansen line station. Bullet train to Shizuoka. Loads of hotels within spitting distance of the train. And light rail trains every 5 minutes from Shizuoka station to the conference venue.
Every step easy, efficient, clean, on time and cheap.
As you say,arriving back at Manchester is horrific by comparison. And that's one of the better-connected airports.
What gets me more than anything about arriving back at a UK airport is how filthy everything is, and how much of the infrastructure (lifts, escalators, travellators) doesn't work.
It feels of "Welcome to England. We don't a really give much of a f**k here."
-
My wife was with me on this trip, and she, bless her, never notices anything, I usually have to point these things out to her. But on arrival at Manchester, as we sat in that grotty little room that passes for a waiting room on the platform she commented on how filthy everything was. She even said that she wondered what Japanese people would make of a welcome like this to our country.
We were in Japan for about 10 days, we travelled extensively, taking in Osaka, Hiroshima, Kyoto, Sapporo, Tokyo, Kobe, and finally back to Osaka. We used the bullet train, express trains, local rail, coaches, planes, the metro and just one taxi because we weren't sure where to go. Every bit of it was joined up, coordinated, clean, and ran on time, every time, and all of the time.
For a country like ours, that has the 5th largest economy in the world, our transport network is a disgrace.
-
I have never been to Japan, been to lot's in Europe, mostly by car under my own steam. I don't even know without research whether a countries rail networks is nationalised or private company.
But in this country I do know the running of our railway system is about making money for the firms involved, and running a rail network is secondary. They will not employ people they think they have no need of, and that can effect the bottom line(cleaners etc.).
If they can get away with old rail stock they will do. Full rail stock makes money, half empty does not, the interval of trains is extended for this purpose, the same with bus companies.
The lead comes from the top, and what is the main thing the heads of companies in this country are interested in now? The answer themselves and the big bucks.
-
Selby.
Then vote Labour. They're going to re-nationalise the rail companies.
-
Billy I would re-nationalise the rail service tomorrow, and let local councils run bus services again as in my youth, because it was better.
I will never vote Labour again, after a lifetime of never voting for anyone else.
-
I really don't get you Selby.
Labour has a string of policies that you would support. But you won't vote for them because...?
-
Selby.
Then vote Labour. They're going to re-nationalise the rail companies.
Genuine question. As much as I'd love to see the rail companies re-nationalised, won't the EU block this?
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market-restrictions-labour-a8968691.html
No and yes.
-
I'm currently on a Bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka. The infrastructure this country has is literally breathtaking, and it all works. We can only dream of having something similar as no government, or, it seems, people on this forum would want it.
If you were to experience it I'm sure you would all change your minds. The impact on quality of life would be immense.
I don't think a lot of us are against investments in our infrastructure SM, it's just looking to where those investments might be best placed for the benefit of the whole of the UK and IMO HS2 isn't it. We need significant improvements of bot the rail and road networks East to West far more than shaving off a few minutes between Birmingham and London. I can get from Doncaster to London far quicker with the infrastructure as it is today than I can from Doncaster to Liverpool, (which is nearer), for example.
I used to commute from Southport to Manchester by rail and it was a nightmare - old rolling stock, slow trains and unbelievable congestion.
My eldest Son travels from just outside Bolton to Manchester and it's an absolute nightmare - and he travels outside of peak times! The M60 and M62 are no longer fit for purpose.
It's investment in the North for everyone here that's needed, not a few minutes quicker for businessmen into London!
Apologies for the delay in responding NNK, I've done a lot of miles in the last few days and jet lag is a bitch.
We're on the same page here, I have never argued for HS2 on this thread or elsewhere (despite Hound basing his whole argument against me on that point), all I've suggested is that an integrated transport policy, which should mean major investment, would benefit all of us. There are obviously priorities in certain places, and the north needs them desperately.
As an example, in Osaka where I spent the last few days, I had a hotel close to the OCAT, https://osaka-info.jp/en/page/ocat-osaka-air-terminal, and then in the morning caught a bus direct to the terminal at Kansai airport. Buses run every 10 minutes, trains every 7/8 minutes or so, and it's a distance of about 32 miles and takes 36 minutes.
On arriving at Manchester airport it felt like arriving in a 3rd world country, it was scruffy, desolate and the train I needed only runs every couple of hours. Admittedly its longer, about 66 miles, but it takes 2 hours, and on a train packed to the rafters with no facilities. The contrast between the two countries and journey's couldn't have been starker. The lack of investment is a disgrace.
Many thanks for the considered reply SM, and I hope you enjoyed Japan - somewhere I'd love to visit, maybe one day.
Yes, we do seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet regarding infrastructure investment; and I know where you're coming from re the airport train terminal and the trains that run from there. I regularly take the 'Airport Express' from Doncaster, (it sets off from Cleethorpes), to meet friends in Manchester. Considering it's purported to be an airport express I find it absolutely amazing that a) there is so little space for people to store their suitcases, (minimal storage at the end of a carriage and the overhead shelves are not big enough), that people simply put them in the isles, on the tables or on their knees! and b) to call it an express is simply a joke!
The roads East to West are as bad. We went to visit our son who lives just outside Bolton today. There'd been a serious accident on the 62 which was closed, (quite correctly in the circumstances) in both directions so our only alternative was to go across country - and what a nightmare that was as lorries obviously looking to avoid the 62 had little option but to use roads where are simply not fit for that purpose causing major congestion and very slow traffic - and this on a Sunday! Fortunately we were in no hurry, but I can imagine anyone trying to get to Manchester Airport by that route would be seriously concerned if they would get there on time. And those simply stuck on the 62 - no chance!
-
Another to speak negatively about Manchester rail link. Had reason to catch train to Manchester Airport for a flight to Eindhoven. I too chuckled at the express title, it’s quicker to get to London, limited seating, nowhere for luggage and the seats didn’t even have drop down trays. To compound this even further the toilets were out of use and due to staffing issues there was no refreshments.
On getting to Manchester Airport and starting to follow signs to T3 they just ended leaving you no idea which way to go
-
No it's not my opinion. It's simple economics.
As for your other, very silly comment...I leave many incorrect posts uncommented on. I'm returning to yours because you're like a dog with a badly wrong bone.
I assume you're referring to my earlier post BST?
If so, see my post immediately preceding this one and tell me if you believe I'm still incorrect; and importantly, why?
No NNK. I was referring to Hound.
I fully accept that there are different arguments for priorities in infrastructure spending. And equally, I see no reason why we shouldn't build HS2 and HS3.
France, Spain, Japan, Italy and Germany have all built multiple HS lines. The only problem we have in the UK is stunted ambitions after decades of underinvestment.
Indeed, but the priority should be HS3, widening and an extension to the M18 to take it round the South side of Sheffield and on to Stockport to relieve some of the congestion on the M62. There are many other infrastructure improvements that need to be addressed before trying to shave off a few minutes into London IMO. At the moment the priority, (and therefore the spend), all seems to be centred on London and the Home Counties furthering the economic divide between the North and the South!
What about the untold damage to the countryside and people's homes?
It happens.
How many square miles of countryside have been destroyed through railways compared to airports and the road network? You don't seem to get too upset about us having them.
Any building development which takes away green space upsets me. It feels as though we are becoming a concrete jungle. I can't understand why all these industrial units get built and stand there empty. There clearly isn't much need for them.
Concrete jungle? Do you have any idea how little is actually built on in the UK?
It depends how you measure it, but less than 10% would pretty accurate.
Well that all depends on how lucky you are and where you can afford to live. Personally I don't want to look out of my window and see other houses and roads.
-
I have just been reading my local paper, the next village to where I live is Snaith, there is an outline planning application in the paper for 800 houses on land not previously designated as building land, very little local industry, so travel to work would be the norm.
Very few trains to Leeds, a couple a day from Snaith and expensive, a very poor rural bus service, and country roads that are crumbling under heavy goods vehicles use, Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations and Kellingley colliery shut, all local places with well paid good jobs gone.
So moving here what is there, road travel to Leeds, Hull, Doncaster, Selby, Goole, York, possibly Sheffield and Scunthorpe.
So much for planning to save the planet, turn the local villages into dormitories for the cities near enough to commute to, overstretched local services, hardly any police presence and the doctors facilities and schools already over booked with waiting times. sewage and other services to up grade
-
Looks like the levelling up and Northern Powerhouse agendas have run out of juice;
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/22/hs2-eastern-leg-to-leeds-may-be-scrapped-new-leak-claims
Hs2 never made any sense in terms of the transport economy priorities.
Now it just looks like a pointless vanity project, with all the claimed benefits quietly shunted into the sidings.
-
Looks like the levelling up and Northern Powerhouse agendas have run out of juice;
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/22/hs2-eastern-leg-to-leeds-may-be-scrapped-new-leak-claims
Hs2 never made any sense in terms of the transport economy priorities.
Now it just looks like a pointless vanity project, with all the claimed benefits quietly shunted into the sidings.
I have been against it from the outset.
It isn’t needed.
Covid taught us that people don’t even need to attend meetings.
Zoom and face time saved the day for lots of businesses.
In my opinion HS2 would only mean taking more business from the North to the South East, not the other way.
A massive waste of public money that should be spent in other areas.
-
I have just been reading my local paper, the next village to where I live is Snaith, there is an outline planning application in the paper for 800 houses on land not previously designated as building land, very little local industry, so travel to work would be the norm.
Very few trains to Leeds, a couple a day from Snaith and expensive, a very poor rural bus service, and country roads that are crumbling under heavy goods vehicles use, Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations and Kellingley colliery shut, all local places with well paid good jobs gone.
So moving here what is there, road travel to Leeds, Hull, Doncaster, Selby, Goole, York, possibly Sheffield and Scunthorpe.
So much for planning to save the planet, turn the local villages into dormitories for the cities near enough to commute to, overstretched local services, hardly any police presence and the doctors facilities and schools already over booked with waiting times. sewage and other services to up grade
I notice a lot of these random housing developments. I was in Pocklington the other day, there it was new housing development on the edge of town.
Pocklington is a decent drive from Hull or Scunny or York and further to Leeds or Sheffield. It has a nice railway station but the railway line to Beverley was closed years ago.
The town itself seems reasonably prosperous, though I did notice a lot of charity shops on the high street.
It just looks like there is a tremendous need for housing and each authority has to offer up its bit. So new developments appear randomly all over the country and it all has got to rely a lot on car travel. Add in the fact that the new housing probably is pretty bog standard and won't be particularly efficient and is probably going to be heated by gas...
There doesn't seem to be very much strategic thinking going on.
-
One of the engineers on the project lives next to me, he says public perception of the project has been allowed to centre on the wrong subject, which is faster public travel from north to south, when the main object is to open the existing network to more freight travel for a full twenty four hours a day.
-
So under levelling up we will build HS2 for a huge amount
I have no idea of the cost but let's say (for my story) it's 10 billion quid
5 years or so later with not a spade in the ground anywhere the cost has spiralled to double that
A further 2 years it's gone up to 25 billion and so the Govt decide to axe a third of the proposed network BUT what happens to the money
I'm guessing that we get 2/3 rds of the original system but it still costs all of the 25 billion
Bargain ? Not !