That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
It is just business rent seeking rather than trying to earn an honest crust.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
No, because the political risk is too high, as brilliantly illustrated by this thread.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
Why do the northern business community think HS2 is so important for their future prosperity ?
Presumably they are all wrong ?
It's most odd that spending £10bn's on transport in London does not stir similar argurements that the money should be spent on education etc.
HS2 is for London's benefit.
If you doubt that then suggest building it from the North southwards and see what reaction you get.
You clearly know more than the northern business leaders and politicians who think differently.
It's normal though, why would anyone think that those in the north know what is best for them, those down south have done such a great job.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkele
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
Spec it for a top speed 50mph lower.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
Which is what I understood. It might also lower the technical risk, perhaps ?
Not much. The systems integration challenge is predicated on the automatic signalling system and train control, which will probably need new software.
It will allow increased gradients, curvature, fewer and shorter tunnels and lower civils costs, together with lower energy/opex. It might cut capacity a tad too.
Is there no additional risk in building/ordering trains/track capable of the higher speeds ? Stuff like the physical forces on wheels are considerably higher - and it seems to be significantly higher than high speed rail already running elsewhere.
There's no real mechanical technical risk. It's proven technology.
Systems integration and safety is the real killer for railways. It doesn't cost enough (testing doesn't) so it always gets overlooked in the context of the overall budget versus the huge risk it carries.
Thanks for responding, Casino. It’s been educative.
What would be your guesstimate for a new E/W line from Hull to Liverpool ?
Dunno. I'd be guessing.
Depends on whether it's a totally brand new route, stations and tunnels (very expensive) or reusing many existing routes with some upgrades, new line chords and parkways and resignalling (much more affordable).
That’s why I said guesstimate. How much more might the first be than the second ? (And your guess would certainly be better than mine.)
Just how many never going to be realised planning applications are going to be put in by people who own the HS2 land on the basis that they'll be able to make the Gov't pay out for what would have been the value of the land with the PP granted and whatever built on it ?
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
It is just business rent seeking rather than trying to earn an honest crust.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
No, because the political risk is too high, as brilliantly illustrated by this thread.
So why should the tax payer pay for that risk?
Because they do in every such scheme, be it GWL electrification, Crossrail or any other infrastructure investment,
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
Why do the northern business community think HS2 is so important for their future prosperity ?
Presumably they are all wrong ?
It's most odd that spending £10bn's on transport in London does not stir similar argurements that the money should be spent on education etc.
HS2 is for London's benefit.
If you doubt that then suggest building it from the North southwards and see what reaction you get.
You clearly know more than the northern business leaders and politicians who think differently.
It's normal though, why would anyone think that those in the north know what is best for them, those down south have done such a great job.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
So those people who will benefit in Stoke of having new services into Birmingham and Manchester as a result of additional free'd up capacity on the WCML to have better access to labour markets are the richer in society ????
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
Do you really think the low paid go on trains now or will in the future ?
I'm told that HS2 will allow 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London.
Yet nobody explains where the demand for 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London is going to come from.
You are missing the affect on the WCML of removing the high speed trains and putting them on HS2.
So yes, relatively low paid people from Stoke will benefit from HS2 by having vastly improved trains to Manchester and Birmingham as a result of HS2 freeing up the capacity on the WCML.
And there won't be 18tph from Leeds to London.
12 years HS2 has been in the planning, yet public awareness is almost zero.
HS2 has been 12 years in the spending.
The public are very aware of that.
And do you really think that low paid people commute by train ???
HS2 is a bit like the badger cull.....nobody wants it, but the govt is going ahead because it is lobbied by special interests.....
Evening Tyson.
I was thinking about you today.
I seem to remember that during the 2009 swine flu panic you were willing to trade 10 years of Conservative government in exchange for swine flu not becoming the new Black Death.
Will you accept another 10 years of Conservative government for the coronavirus being controlled ?
That is a nice compliment in a way Richard
It is a no brainer....as much as I dislike the Tories being in power...I do genuinely think they want the best for the country...albeit with our ideological differences...
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
If they could build something at a third of the cost, it would surely have already been proposed?
If £100 billion is the going rate, the question becomes whether it's worth having a new railway at all. You would say no if you think benefits of a new railway are marginal to non-existent. Otherwise you would probably take the investment hit on the grounds that this should have been done years ago.
Someone upthread said that there would be a net benefit of ~60p for every pound spent in the first 60 years.
Yes, that's the odd thing. Many of them seemed to think they were voting to cancel Brexit (LibDems, Greens...). Thick or what?
Just thick.
The auld Lang syne nonsense pissed me off a bit today. The position of most of those participating was our way or the highway. When we chose the Highway they were shocked. It did not compute. An ability to understand where we were coming from could have kept the show on the road, at least for now. We needed an associate status with greater autonomy. Had that been offered to Cameron we would have ended up with a much closer relationship than we will have now.
For someone who can get quite moist eyed about his own union, you seem somehat ungracious about the possibility that folk might feel similarly emotional about another.
I wonder how emotional the SNP were when we confirmed our place in the EEC in the 1975 vote, which they campaigned against?
Perhaps they piped Scotland out of Strasbourg in protest, with tears and all.
A real zinger of a point.
Yep, you have no answer to the point and you know it.
Don't need answers for a shit point barely relevant to a post not even directed at you. Stick to playing with your trainset.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
Why do the northern business community think HS2 is so important for their future prosperity ?
Presumably they are all wrong ?
It's most odd that spending £10bn's on transport in London does not stir similar argurements that the money should be spent on education etc.
HS2 is for London's benefit.
If you doubt that then suggest building it from the North southwards and see what reaction you get.
You'd get a very bad reaction, because it's stupid. You can't decant and free up any capacity on the existing midlands and northern lines until you've built the new line into London that will liberate the main intercity expresses from those lines so they can be used for more/better/faster regional and local services. Otherwise you've got an expensive white elephant.
It's not a conspiracy, it's common sense.
Why are you consistently posting on something you obviously know nothing about?
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
It is just business rent seeking rather than trying to earn an honest crust.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
No, because the political risk is too high, as brilliantly illustrated by this thread.
So why should the tax payer pay for that risk?
Because (a) no-one else will, and (b) they are the ones responsible for the risk.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
It is just business rent seeking rather than trying to earn an honest crust.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
Is there any country in the world that spends nothing on infrastructure development?
I am not suggesting spending nothing. I am quite neutral on HS2 being built. I just want it funded privately. I am certain that those Northern business leaders will be happy to have their savings invested in such a goldmine.
If you want HS2 privately funded, why not other schemes?
Is it any different from Crossrail for example which I doubt you ever posted that you wanted to be privately funded ?
As I have stated, that should have been privately funded too.
Landowners and developers are going to make a financial killing as a result of government paying for Crossrail. There should be a special development tax on the windfalls that the builders and homeowners of the new commuter lands to recoup the money.
Why should the tax payer pay, while the builder profiteers from the developments?
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
If they could build something at a third of the cost, it would surely have already been proposed?
If £100 billion is the going rate, the question becomes whether it's worth having a new railway at all. You would say no if you think benefits of a new railway are marginal to non-existent. Otherwise you would probably take the investment hit on the grounds that this should have been done years ago.
Someone upthread said that there would be a net benefit of ~60p for every pound spent in the first 60 years.
Correct
£1.66 benefit for every £1 spent
That only covers the first 60 years, off course HS2 will last a lot longer than 60 years and will continue to deliver a lot more benefits afterwards
I shudder to think if this discussion happened when the original WCML was being planned, it simply would never have happened.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
W
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkele
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
Spec it for a top speed 50mph lower.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
Which is what I understood. It might also lower the technical risk, perhaps ?
No
It will allow increased gradients, curvature, fewer and shorter tunnels and lower civils costs, together with lower energy/opex. It might cut capacity a tad too.
Is there no additional risk in building/ordering trains/track capable of the higher speeds ? Stuff like the physical forces on wheels are considerably higher - and it seems to be significantly higher than high speed rail already running elsewhere.
There's no real mechanical technical risk. It's proven technology.
Systems integration and safety is the real killer for railways. It doesn't cost enough (testing doesn't) so it always gets overlooked in the context of the overall budget versus the huge risk it carries.
Thanks for responding, Casino. It’s been educative.
What would be your guesstimate for a new E/W line from Hull to Liverpool ?
Dunno. I'd be guessing.
Depends on whether it's a totally brand new route, stations and tunnels (very expensive) or reusing many existing routes with some upgrades, new line chords and parkways and resignalling (much more affordable).
That’s why I said guesstimate. How much more might the first be than the second ? (And your guess would certainly be better than mine.)
I dunno. £10bn - £40bn, depending on how you do it.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
W
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkele
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
Spec it for a top speed 50mph lower.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
Which is what I understood. It might also lower the technical risk, perhaps ?
No
It will allow increased gradients, curvature, fewer and shorter tunnels and lower civils costs, together with lower energy/opex. It might cut capacity a tad too.
Is there no additional risk in building/ordering trains/track capable of the higher speeds ? Stuff like the physical forces on wheels are considerably higher - and it seems to be significantly higher than high speed rail already running elsewhere.
There's no real mechanical technical risk. It's proven technology.
Systems integration and safety is the real killer for railways. It doesn't cost enough (testing doesn't) so it always gets overlooked in the context of the overall budget versus the huge risk it carries.
Thanks for responding, Casino. It’s been educative.
What would be your guesstimate for a new E/W line from Hull to Liverpool ?
Dunno. I'd be guessing.
Depends on whether it's a totally brand new route, stations and tunnels (very expensive) or reusing many existing routes with some upgrades, new line chords and parkways and resignalling (much more affordable).
That’s why I said guesstimate. How much more might the first be than the second ? (And your guess would certainly be better than mine.)
I dunno. £10bn - £40bn, depending on how you do it.
Something like that.
Thanks. So it might be just about conceivable to build the first from my savings on HS2... ?
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
If they could build something at a third of the cost, it would surely have already been proposed?
If £100 billion is the going rate, the question becomes whether it's worth having a new railway at all. You would say no if you think benefits of a new railway are marginal to non-existent. Otherwise you would probably take the investment hit on the grounds that this should have been done years ago.
Someone upthread said that there would be a net benefit of ~60p for every pound spent in the first 60 years.
Correct
£1.66 benefit for every £1 spent
That only covers the first 60 years, off course HS2 will last a lot longer than 60 years and will continue to deliver a lot more benefits afterwards
I shudder to think if this discussion happened when the original WCML was being planned, it simply would never have happened.
Because every government on the planet recognises that improving connectivity improves the economy and wellbeing of it's population.
You are suggesting that the UK government be unique is halting this investment and leaving it to the market, a risk adverse market that will never have the ability to benefit in the same way the state does through such investment.
Out of interest, why do you think every other government across the entire planet decide to invest in such a way and not leave it to the private sector?
Yes, that's the odd thing. Many of them seemed to think they were voting to cancel Brexit (LibDems, Greens...). Thick or what?
Just thick.
The auld Lang syne nonsense pissed me off a bit today. The position of most of those participating was our way or the highway. When we chose the Highway they were shocked. It did not compute. An ability to understand where we were coming from could have kept the show on the road, at least for now. We needed an associate status with greater autonomy. Had that been offered to Cameron we would have ended up with a much closer relationship than we will have now.
For someone who can get quite moist eyed about his own union, you seem somehat ungracious about the possibility that folk might feel similarly emotional about another.
I wonder how emotional the SNP were when we confirmed our place in the EEC in the 1975 vote, which they campaigned against?
Perhaps they piped Scotland out of Strasbourg in protest, with tears and all.
A real zinger of a point.
Yep, you have no answer to the point and you know it.
Don't need answers for a shit point barely relevant to a post not even directed at you. Stick to playing with your trainset.
Lol. The usual charming response we've come to expect from a rather unpleasant poster who likes to dish it out but can't take it, and probably still lives with his mum.
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
If they could build something at a third of the cost, it would surely have already been proposed?
If £100 billion is the going rate, the question becomes whether it's worth having a new railway at all. You would say no if you think benefits of a new railway are marginal to non-existent. Otherwise you would probably take the investment hit on the grounds that this should have been done years ago.
Someone upthread said that there would be a net benefit of ~60p for every pound spent in the first 60 years.
Correct
£1.66 benefit for every £1 spent
That only covers the first 60 years, off course HS2 will last a lot longer than 60 years and will continue to deliver a lot more benefits afterwards
I shudder to think if this discussion happened when the original WCML was being planned, it simply would never have happened.
The bonds should fly off the shelf then...
Please explain
How does an investor benefit from increased local taxes being raised.
Because every government on the planet recognises that improving connectivity improves the economy and wellbeing of it's population.
You are suggesting that the UK government be unique is halting this investment and leaving it to the market, a risk adverse market that will never have the ability to benefit in the same way the state does through such investment.
Out of interest, why do you think every other government across the entire planet decide to invest in such a way and not leave it to the private sector?
Maybe the market is risk averse because it knows a white elephant when it sees one.
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Trust on UK infrastructure spending disappeared many years ago.
Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects.
No one ever seems to mention the phantom Brandenburg airport in Berlin which the ultra efficient Germans have consistently and royally fucked up, and which still hasn't opened almost 15 years after construction started.
And they're still not sure when it will do.
Remind us what the promised costs and completion date of Crossrail were.
14.8bn and delivery on 9th December 2018
18.25bn and open by December 2021 is the current forecast.
So that's 21% overbudget and 3 years late to deliver the most technically complex metro railway ever built*. That's actually quite good.
Brandenburg is going to be over 9 years late (and counting) and almost three times over budget. And airports are far simpler than railways.
(Incidentally, it's exactly where my firm were advising Government on outturn cost and date back in 2007-2008 when the bill was going through).
The "it doesn't matter that we were billions over-budget and years behind schedule because someone else made a worse job of something else" line doesn't inspire trust.
From transport to nuclear power stations to Gordon Brown's beloved IT systems to PFI to renovations of Parliament to anything the MoD touches the pattern continues.
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
There is no ‘of this sort’. As Casino pointed out, a large part of the cost is simply acquiring the route, which makes it a different animal to a new railway elsewhere.
By "of this sort", I mean a new railway that goes north out of London. If the costs are valid for that particular railway line, it comes down to a question of whether that railway is useful enough over a long term to make the investment worthwhile. That you can hypothetically build a railway somewhere else for less cost is irrelevant.
My instinct is that this railway will be useful and therefore merits a major investment. Obviously there comes a point when the price tag is too high and it's not worth it. I don't have a good feel for what that price tag is.
...Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects...
Heathrow would seem to be a rather large counter-example. As would the Severn barrage.
Airports are simpler and more predictable to build (yes, really) but remember T5 had a brilliant press up until opening day. And then it was a disaster due to the baggage systems.
Everyone absolutely loved Crossrail until it was late 2 years ago, and then knives were stuck in from every angle.
That's ok, that's politics, but it was remarkable to see how quickly hitherto allies turned on a head of a pin from the inside.
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Trust on UK infrastructure spending disappeared many years ago.
Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects.
No one ever seems to mention the phantom Brandenburg airport in Berlin which the ultra efficient Germans have consistently and royally fucked up, and which still hasn't opened almost 15 years after construction started.
And they're still not sure when it will do.
Remind us what the promised costs and completion date of Crossrail were.
14.8bn and delivery on 9th December 2018
18.25bn and open by December 2021 is the current forecast.
So that's 21% overbudget and 3 years late to deliver the most technically complex metro railway ever built*. That's actually quite good.
Brandenburg is going to be over 9 years late (and counting) and almost three times over budget. And airports are far simpler than railways.
(Incidentally, it's exactly where my firm were advising Government on outturn cost and date back in 2007-2008 when the bill was going through).
The "it doesn't matter that we were billions over-budget and years behind schedule because someone else made a worse job of something else" line doesn't inspire trust.
From transport to nuclear power stations to Gordon Brown's beloved IT systems to PFI to renovations of Parliament to anything the MoD touches the pattern continues.
And there is no accountability for those who allowed the cost over runs.
It is privatising the profit and nationalising the risk.
Because every government on the planet recognises that improving connectivity improves the economy and wellbeing of it's population.
You are suggesting that the UK government be unique is halting this investment and leaving it to the market, a risk adverse market that will never have the ability to benefit in the same way the state does through such investment.
Out of interest, why do you think every other government across the entire planet decide to invest in such a way and not leave it to the private sector?
Maybe the market is risk averse because it knows a white elephant when it sees one.
Or maybe because the private sector is not tasked with reducing carbon output - this will be part of the beenfits of HS2.
Maybe they do not take the extra taxes that result from increased economic activity.
Maybe the reason the entire planet operate in a way that you do not understand is because you are missing something?
Some wonderful speeches today as the EU says goodbye to the UK .
Ursula Von Der Leyen once again with some lovely warm words . Compared to the disgraceful bunch of Brexit Party MEPs who exit as they entered . Utterly loathsome and a complete embarrassment to the UK.
Yes, that's the odd thing. Many of them seemed to think they were voting to cancel Brexit (LibDems, Greens...). Thick or what?
Just thick.
The auld Lang syne nonsense pissed me off a bit today. The position of most of those participating was our way or the highway. When we chose the Highway they were shocked. It did not compute. An ability to understand where we were coming from could have kept the show on the road, at least for now. We needed an associate status with greater autonomy. Had that been offered to Cameron we would have ended up with a much closer relationship than we will have now.
For someone who can get quite moist eyed about his own union, you seem somewhat ungracious about the possibility that folk might feel similarly emotional about another.
That’s a fair point. I should have been more gracious about it.
Yep, you have no answer to the point and you know it.
If the SNP once represented narrow nationalism, they don't anymore. That's the Conservatives.
The only consistent behaviour exhibited by the SNP is to take a different policy to HMG to purse their nationalism. They couldn't care less what the fault line is, so long as there is one.
Right now, your interests and theirs coincidence. I wouldn't be fooled that it's a permanent one.
Because every government on the planet recognises that improving connectivity improves the economy and wellbeing of it's population.
You are suggesting that the UK government be unique is halting this investment and leaving it to the market, a risk adverse market that will never have the ability to benefit in the same way the state does through such investment.
Out of interest, why do you think every other government across the entire planet decide to invest in such a way and not leave it to the private sector?
Maybe the market is risk averse because it knows a white elephant when it sees one.
Or maybe because the private sector is not tasked with reducing carbon output - this will be part of the beenfits of HS2.
Maybe they do not take the extra taxes that result from increased economic activity.
Maybe the reason the entire planet operate in a way that you do not understand is because you are missing something?
I would have no problem on taxing air fuel on internal flights to level the playing field.
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Trust on UK infrastructure spending disappeared many years ago.
Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects.
No one ever seems to mention the phantom Brandenburg airport in Berlin which the ultra efficient Germans have consistently and royally fucked up, and which still hasn't opened almost 15 years after construction started.
And they're still not sure when it will do.
Remind us what the promised costs and completion date of Crossrail were.
14.8bn and delivery on 9th December 2018
18.25bn and open by December 2021 is the current forecast.
So that's 21% overbudget and 3 years late to deliver the most technically complex metro railway ever built*. That's actually quite good.
Brandenburg is going to be over 9 years late (and counting) and almost three times over budget. And airports are far simpler than railways.
(Incidentally, it's exactly where my firm were advising Government on outturn cost and date back in 2007-2008 when the bill was going through).
The "it doesn't matter that we were billions over-budget and years behind schedule because someone else made a worse job of something else" line doesn't inspire trust.
From transport to nuclear power stations to Gordon Brown's beloved IT systems to PFI to renovations of Parliament to anything the MoD touches the pattern continues.
The Treasury insists on cutting back contingency when allocating public funds. That's a big reason. The initial budget declared is rarely the 'real' budget. And they never seem to learn that lesson, because politics.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
Why do the northern business community think HS2 is so important for their future prosperity ?
Presumably they are all wrong ?
It's most odd that spending £10bn's on transport in London does not stir similar argurements that the money should be spent on education etc.
HS2 is for London's benefit.
If you doubt that then suggest building it from the North southwards and see what reaction you get.
You'd get a very bad reaction, because it's stupid. You can't decant and free up any capacity on the existing midlands and northern lines until you've built the new line into London that will liberate the main intercity expresses from those lines so they can be used for more/better/faster regional and local services. Otherwise you've got an expensive white elephant.
It's not a conspiracy, it's common sense.
Why are you consistently posting on something you obviously know nothing about?
I know that I've been proven right about how the costs would increase and the completion date would extend.
And how the justification for HS2 would change time and time again.
Because every government on the planet recognises that improving connectivity improves the economy and wellbeing of it's population.
You are suggesting that the UK government be unique is halting this investment and leaving it to the market, a risk adverse market that will never have the ability to benefit in the same way the state does through such investment.
Out of interest, why do you think every other government across the entire planet decide to invest in such a way and not leave it to the private sector?
Maybe the market is risk averse because it knows a white elephant when it sees one.
Or maybe because the private sector is not tasked with reducing carbon output - this will be part of the beenfits of HS2.
Maybe they do not take the extra taxes that result from increased economic activity.
Maybe the reason the entire planet operate in a way that you do not understand is because you are missing something?
I would have no problem on taxing air fuel on internal flights to level the playing field.
how does that address the capacity issues on the WCML ?
Address those issues = more long term business activity
More long term business activity = less reliance on welfare and more taxes paid
Less reliance on welfare and more taxes paid = benefit to the state but not the private sector
Maybe you are missing how the economics of these schemes are developed ?
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Trust on UK infrastructure spending disappeared many years ago.
Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects.
No one ever seems to mention the phantom Brandenburg airport in Berlin which the ultra efficient Germans have consistently and royally fucked up, and which still hasn't opened almost 15 years after construction started.
And they're still not sure when it will do.
Remind us what the promised costs and completion date of Crossrail were.
14.8bn and delivery on 9th December 2018
18.25bn and open by December 2021 is the current forecast.
So that's 21% overbudget and 3 years late to deliver the most technically complex metro railway ever built*. That's actually quite good.
Brandenburg is going to be over 9 years late (and counting) and almost three times over budget. And airports are far simpler than railways.
(Incidentally, it's exactly where my firm were advising Government on outturn cost and date back in 2007-2008 when the bill was going through).
The "it doesn't matter that we were billions over-budget and years behind schedule because someone else made a worse job of something else" line doesn't inspire trust.
From transport to nuclear power stations to Gordon Brown's beloved IT systems to PFI to renovations of Parliament to anything the MoD touches the pattern continues.
And there is no accountability for those who allowed the cost over runs.
It is privatising the profit and nationalising the risk.
Very true.
None of the fatcat contractors ever end up behind 'homeless and hungry' signs.
Nor did any of the fatcat bankers.
If a few of both had done so the country would be a happier place.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
Why do the northern business community think HS2 is so important for their future prosperity ?
Presumably they are all wrong ?
It's most odd that spending £10bn's on transport in London does not stir similar argurements that the money should be spent on education etc.
HS2 is for London's benefit.
If you doubt that then suggest building it from the North southwards and see what reaction you get.
You clearly know more than the northern business leaders and politicians who think differently.
It's normal though, why would anyone think that those in the north know what is best for them, those down south have done such a great job.
Northern business leaders saying they want HS2 delivered in full does not mean they are desperate for Birmingham to London to be built. They mean they want to ensure the Northern part gets built and the London based decision makers don't abandon the project at Birmingham.
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
If they could build something at a third of the cost, it would surely have already been proposed?
If £100 billion is the going rate, the question becomes whether it's worth having a new railway at all. You would say no if you think benefits of a new railway are marginal to non-existent. Otherwise you would probably take the investment hit on the grounds that this should have been done years ago.
Someone upthread said that there would be a net benefit of ~60p for every pound spent in the first 60 years.
Excuse me if I give that number the Paddington hard stare.....
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
Why do the northern business community think HS2 is so important for their future prosperity ?
Presumably they are all wrong ?
It's most odd that spending £10bn's on transport in London does not stir similar argurements that the money should be spent on education etc.
HS2 is for London's benefit.
If you doubt that then suggest building it from the North southwards and see what reaction you get.
You clearly know more than the northern business leaders and politicians who think differently.
It's normal though, why would anyone think that those in the north know what is best for them, those down south have done such a great job.
Northern business leaders saying they want HS2 delivered in full does not mean they are desperate for Birmingham to London to be built. They mean they want to ensure the Northern part gets built and the London based decision makers don't abandon the project at Birmingham.
No
If you listen to them they will say that you are unable to deliver phase 2 without phase 1, the trains have no where to go when they get to Rugby.
The northern business leaders, the northern politicians almost all want HS2 to be built in full, fact this is not common knowledge is a shocking indictment on the media in this country with the London bias.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
On HS2, I would be quite happy to have a massive wealth transfer to the rich, if it was by way of bonuses for costs savings.
We have agreed the top cost as £106bn. Not a penny more. For every billion the final costs come in below that number, the management team gets a bonus of £200m. No reduction in spec guys. Just creative development methods......(and stripping out the padding you built in).
I'd rather spend the billion than the 200m.....
You must be in charge of dishing out contracts to Labour donors then.....
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
If they could build something at a third of the cost, it would surely have already been proposed?
If £100 billion is the going rate, the question becomes whether it's worth having a new railway at all. You would say no if you think benefits of a new railway are marginal to non-existent. Otherwise you would probably take the investment hit on the grounds that this should have been done years ago.
Someone upthread said that there would be a net benefit of ~60p for every pound spent in the first 60 years.
Excuse me if I give that number the Paddington hard stare.....
It'll obviously be far higher given HS2 will last a lot longer than 60 years.
What do you reckon the same calculation would have given those who built the original WCML 120 years ago ?
Yes, that's the odd thing. Many of them seemed to think they were voting to cancel Brexit (LibDems, Greens...). Thick or what?
Just thick.
The auld Lang syne nonsense pissed me off a bit today. The position of most of those participating was our way or the highway. When we chose the Highway they were shocked. It did not compute. An ability to understand where we were coming from could have kept the show on the road, at least for now. We needed an associate status with greater autonomy. Had that been offered to Cameron we would have ended up with a much closer relationship than we will have now.
For someone who can get quite moist eyed about his own union, you seem somehat ungracious about the possibility that folk might feel similarly emotional about another.
I wonder how emotional the SNP were when we confirmed our place in the EEC in the 1975 vote, which they campaigned against?
Perhaps they piped Scotland out of Strasbourg in protest, with tears and all.
A real zinger of a point.
Yep, you have no answer to the point and you know it.
Don't need answers for a shit point barely relevant to a post not even directed at you. Stick to playing with your trainset.
Lol. The usual charming response we've come to expect from a rather unpleasant poster who likes to dish it out but can't take it, and probably still lives with his mum.
Keep dreaming of Indyref2, boy.
For someone so thin skinned you're pretty shit at insults. I'm quite sure Nigel and his Brexit boors represented your approach admirably, I expected better of DavidL.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
So those people who will benefit in Stoke of having new services into Birmingham and Manchester as a result of additional free'd up capacity on the WCML to have better access to labour markets are the richer in society ????
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
Do you really think the low paid go on trains now or will in the future ?
I'm told that HS2 will allow 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London.
Yet nobody explains where the demand for 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London is going to come from.
You are missing the affect on the WCML of removing the high speed trains and putting them on HS2.
So yes, relatively low paid people from Stoke will benefit from HS2 by having vastly improved trains to Manchester and Birmingham as a result of HS2 freeing up the capacity on the WCML.
And there won't be 18tph from Leeds to London.
12 years HS2 has been in the planning, yet public awareness is almost zero.
HS2 has been 12 years in the spending.
The public are very aware of that.
And do you really think that low paid people commute by train ???
HS2 is a bit like the badger cull.....nobody wants it, but the govt is going ahead because it is lobbied by special interests.....
Evening Tyson.
I was thinking about you today.
I seem to remember that during the 2009 swine flu panic you were willing to trade 10 years of Conservative government in exchange for swine flu not becoming the new Black Death.
Will you accept another 10 years of Conservative government for the coronavirus being controlled ?
That is a nice compliment in a way Richard
It is a no brainer....as much as I dislike the Tories being in power...I do genuinely think they want the best for the country...albeit with our ideological differences...
I'm sometimes amazed about how much I know about people I've been conversing with for years but have never actually met and of the many things I've been able to learn from them.
The internet really has brought some great benefits to the world.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
On HS2, I would be quite happy to have a massive wealth transfer to the rich, if it was by way of bonuses for costs savings.
We have agreed the top cost as £106bn. Not a penny more. For every billion the final costs come in below that number, the management team gets a bonus of £200m. No reduction in spec guys. Just creative development methods......(and stripping out the padding you built in).
I'd rather spend the billion than the 200m.....
You must be in charge of dishing out contracts to Labour donors then.....
Boris fans are in no position to lecture on unnecessary bridges.....
...Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects...
Heathrow would seem to be a rather large counter-example. As would the Severn barrage.
Airports are simpler and more predictable to build (yes, really) but remember T5 had a brilliant press up until opening day. And then it was a disaster due to the baggage systems.
Everyone absolutely loved Crossrail until it was late 2 years ago, and then knives were stuck in from every angle.
That's ok, that's politics, but it was remarkable to see how quickly hitherto allies turned on a head of a pin from the inside.
Some wonderful speeches today as the EU says goodbye to the UK .
Ursula Von Der Leyen once again with some lovely warm words . Compared to the disgraceful bunch of Brexit Party MEPs who exit as they entered . Utterly loathsome and a complete embarrassment to the UK.
They do it with style whilst the UK mob , minus Scottish MEP's resort to the gutter.
Yep, you have no answer to the point and you know it.
If the SNP once represented narrow nationalism, they don't anymore. That's the Conservatives.
The only consistent behaviour exhibited by the SNP is to take a different policy to HMG to purse their nationalism. They couldn't care less what the fault line is, so long as there is one.
Right now, your interests and theirs coincidence. I wouldn't be fooled that it's a permanent one.
Because every government on the planet recognises that improving connectivity improves the economy and wellbeing of it's population.
You are suggesting that the UK government be unique is halting this investment and leaving it to the market, a risk adverse market that will never have the ability to benefit in the same way the state does through such investment.
Out of interest, why do you think every other government across the entire planet decide to invest in such a way and not leave it to the private sector?
Maybe the market is risk averse because it knows a white elephant when it sees one.
Or maybe because the private sector is not tasked with reducing carbon output - this will be part of the beenfits of HS2.
Maybe they do not take the extra taxes that result from increased economic activity.
Maybe the reason the entire planet operate in a way that you do not understand is because you are missing something?
I would have no problem on taxing air fuel on internal flights to level the playing field.
how does that address the capacity issues on the WCML ?
Address those issues = more long term business activity
More long term business activity = less reliance on welfare and more taxes paid
Less reliance on welfare and more taxes paid = benefit to the state but not the private sector
Maybe you are missing how the economics of these schemes are developed ?
Like I said, there should be no problem selling the stocks and bonds to Northerners for their pension savings then.
What they want is all the benefits, and for those away from the line to pay for it. I don't blame them for their attempt at pork barreling, but it is not a rational way to allocate resources.
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Trust on UK infrastructure spending disappeared many years ago.
Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects.
No one ever seems to mention the phantom Brandenburg airport in Berlin which the ultra efficient Germans have consistently and royally fucked up, and which still hasn't opened almost 15 years after construction started.
And they're still not sure when it will do.
Remind us what the promised costs and completion date of Crossrail were.
14.8bn and delivery on 9th December 2018
18.25bn and open by December 2021 is the current forecast.
So that's 21% overbudget and 3 years late to deliver the most technically complex metro railway ever built*. That's actually quite good.
Brandenburg is going to be over 9 years late (and counting) and almost three times over budget. And airports are far simpler than railways.
(Incidentally, it's exactly where my firm were advising Government on outturn cost and date back in 2007-2008 when the bill was going through).
The "it doesn't matter that we were billions over-budget and years behind schedule because someone else made a worse job of something else" line doesn't inspire trust.
From transport to nuclear power stations to Gordon Brown's beloved IT systems to PFI to renovations of Parliament to anything the MoD touches the pattern continues.
The Treasury insists on cutting back contingency when allocating public funds. That's a big reason. The initial budget declared is rarely the 'real' budget. And they never seem to learn that lesson, because politics.
Shouldn't a contingency be for something exceptional going wrong ?
Rather than being a fundamental and major part of the cost.
Either way that you say the initial budget declares is rarely the 'real' budget shows why trust in such projects was lost years ago.
Because every government on the planet recognises that improving connectivity improves the economy and wellbeing of it's population.
You are suggesting that the UK government be unique is halting this investment and leaving it to the market, a risk adverse market that will never have the ability to benefit in the same way the state does through such investment.
Out of interest, why do you think every other government across the entire planet decide to invest in such a way and not leave it to the private sector?
Maybe the market is risk averse because it knows a white elephant when it sees one.
Or maybe because the private sector is not tasked with reducing carbon output - this will be part of the beenfits of HS2.
Maybe they do not take the extra taxes that result from increased economic activity.
Maybe the reason the entire planet operate in a way that you do not understand is because you are missing something?
I would have no problem on taxing air fuel on internal flights to level the playing field.
how does that address the capacity issues on the WCML ?
Address those issues = more long term business activity
More long term business activity = less reliance on welfare and more taxes paid
Less reliance on welfare and more taxes paid = benefit to the state but not the private sector
Maybe you are missing how the economics of these schemes are developed ?
Like I said, there should be no problem selling the stocks and bonds to Northerners for their pension savings then.
What they want is all the benefits, and for those away from the line to pay for it. I don't blame them for their attempt at pork barreling, but it is not a rational way to allocate resources.
How do northerners benefit from a reduced welfare bill to the treasury in London????
and you are about to find it very much is the national way of allocating resources, the only difference is this time it is not focused on the south east.
Comments
Meanwhile nobody I know supports it but then they don't include members of the Fatcat class.
(And your guess would certainly be better than mine.)
Average Northerners take a different view.
It is a no brainer....as much as I dislike the Tories being in power...I do genuinely think they want the best for the country...albeit with our ideological differences...
It's not a conspiracy, it's common sense.
Why are you consistently posting on something you obviously know nothing about?
Landowners and developers are going to make a financial killing as a result of government paying for Crossrail. There should be a special development tax on the windfalls that the builders and homeowners of the new commuter lands to recoup the money.
Why should the tax payer pay, while the builder profiteers from the developments?
£1.66 benefit for every £1 spent
That only covers the first 60 years, off course HS2 will last a lot longer than 60 years and will continue to deliver a lot more benefits afterwards
I shudder to think if this discussion happened when the original WCML was being planned, it simply would never have happened.
Something like that.
So it might be just about conceivable to build the first from my savings on HS2... ?
Because every government on the planet recognises that improving connectivity improves the economy and wellbeing of it's population.
You are suggesting that the UK government be unique is halting this investment and leaving it to the market, a risk adverse market that will never have the ability to benefit in the same way the state does through such investment.
Out of interest, why do you think every other government across the entire planet decide to invest in such a way and not leave it to the private sector?
Keep dreaming of Indyref2, boy.
How does an investor benefit from increased local taxes being raised.
Confused
From transport to nuclear power stations to Gordon Brown's beloved IT systems to PFI to renovations of Parliament to anything the MoD touches the pattern continues.
My instinct is that this railway will be useful and therefore merits a major investment. Obviously there comes a point when the price tag is too high and it's not worth it. I don't have a good feel for what that price tag is.
Everyone absolutely loved Crossrail until it was late 2 years ago, and then knives were stuck in from every angle.
That's ok, that's politics, but it was remarkable to see how quickly hitherto allies turned on a head of a pin from the inside.
It is privatising the profit and nationalising the risk.
Maybe they do not take the extra taxes that result from increased economic activity.
Maybe the reason the entire planet operate in a way that you do not understand is because you are missing something?
Ursula Von Der Leyen once again with some lovely warm words . Compared to the disgraceful bunch of Brexit Party MEPs who exit as they entered . Utterly loathsome and a complete embarrassment to the UK.
Right now, your interests and theirs coincidence. I wouldn't be fooled that it's a permanent one.
Legislation in terms of consultancy and a heavily populated island don't help.
And how the justification for HS2 would change time and time again.
Address those issues = more long term business activity
More long term business activity = less reliance on welfare and more taxes paid
Less reliance on welfare and more taxes paid = benefit to the state but not the private sector
Maybe you are missing how the economics of these schemes are developed ?
None of the fatcat contractors ever end up behind 'homeless and hungry' signs.
Nor did any of the fatcat bankers.
If a few of both had done so the country would be a happier place.
If you listen to them they will say that you are unable to deliver phase 2 without phase 1, the trains have no where to go when they get to Rugby.
The northern business leaders, the northern politicians almost all want HS2 to be built in full, fact this is not common knowledge is a shocking indictment on the media in this country with the London bias.
What do you reckon the same calculation would have given those who built the original WCML 120 years ago ?
I'm quite sure Nigel and his Brexit boors represented your approach admirably, I expected better of DavidL.
The internet really has brought some great benefits to the world.
What they want is all the benefits, and for those away from the line to pay for it. I don't blame them for their attempt at pork barreling, but it is not a rational way to allocate resources.
Rather than being a fundamental and major part of the cost.
Either way that you say the initial budget declares is rarely the 'real' budget shows why trust in such projects was lost years ago.
and you are about to find it very much is the national way of allocating resources, the only difference is this time it is not focused on the south east.
This thread has run out of rails