advertisement


HS2/3 What else could we spend the money on?

cooky1257

cooky1257

pfm Member
There appears 'all or nowt' thinking around these projects as if they represent the only choice. So My question is, would the money be better spent elsewhere and what on?
 
National economics - despite thatchers idiocy - are not akin to home economics . Deciding not to spend on one thing , does not mean the money is available to spend elsewhere .

Additionally infrastructure spending , effects GDP .
 
The country is in an hopeless mess after many decades of exceptionally short-sighted and stupid governments either ignoring or worse flogging off national infrastructure. The most pressing shortfall is almost certainly in power. There is a point rapidly approaching where the existing decaying systems will simply not be able to meet demand. Fossil fuels are mainly controlled by unpredictable religions or gangster capitalism, so importing them is a very poor long-term strategy. As such I'd be looking to build nuclear power stations, as many and as fast as possible. After that I'd hoof the failed, often criminally negligent yet staggeringly greedy private sector out of the existing rail infrastructure and sort that out so it actually works for the end-user. So, power first, then rail infrastructure IMO, though a very strong case can be made for broadband / IT infrastructure spending too as the UK is just hopeless compared to many other places in the world and this failure costs business dearly.
 
Tony L said:
The country is in an hopeless mess after many decades of exceptionally short-sighted and stupid governments either ignoring or worse flogging off national infrastructure. The most pressing shortfall is almost certainly in power. There is a point rapidly approaching where the existing decaying systems will simply not be able to meet demand. Fossil fuels are mainly controlled by unpredictable religions or gangster capitalism, so importing them is a very poor long-term strategy. As such I'd be looking to build nuclear power stations, as many and as fast as possible. After that I'd hoof the failed, often criminally negligent yet staggeringly greedy private sector out of the existing rail infrastructure and sort that out so it actually works for the end-user. So, power first, then rail infrastructure IMO, though a very strong case can be made for broadband / IT infrastructure spending too as the UK is just hopeless compared to many other places in the world and this failure costs business dearly.
Click to expand...


Whilst I agree with the sentiments, are we able to re-nationalise the railways? I've read snippets that say we can't due to EU competition rules but I can't find anything substantial to back this up or knock it down so it could be bluff and bluster by MP's etc. But more worrying is Network Rail is now directly under the control of the state and we absorbed this with a £34bn debt that is rising and estimated to be £50bn by the end of the decade.

Like most things, it's a mess as the state are taking hits when the rail companies seem to be making a profit. But another snippet was something like - only a third of the cost of rail travel is met by rail travellers and the rest by the state?? And we have some of the highest rail fares in Europe I believe??
 
I can't see the NHS turning down this amount as an investment in new kit and expensive drugs, can you?
 
Railways can be re-nationalized without a problem.

the 1/3 figure is what goes to pay network rail , . the other 2/3rds of the revenue is kept by the private companies . They of course run at a profit .

Rail finances are self sufficient if organised to be so .
 
You're right. Looking at some actual figures, £1.9bn goes to network rail from the train operators and this is then supported by £4bn from the state so this must be the third/two thirds I saw. The snippet must have been referring to just Network Rail costs.

On a grander scale to operate a compete train service, based on these figures, it seems 59% comes from passenger fares, 31% from government and 10% from commercial operations and other revenue streams.

12d708bf97016f19d3af706604efa0cb.jpg
 
income is 9 billion , once the neglected infastructure is dealt with , there is no reason why a government couldnt run it for this sum or with a minor subsidy .

note the rail company's have 2.5bn of other costs !!!!! ermmm , profit and dividends and fat cat salaries
 
Love to see Nuclear power stations built and a better rail network.

Whilst not agreeing with the current rail solution, I do remember the totally shit way the previous nationalised rail service was run. It was a firking disgrace with poorly maintained and run equipment by people who couldn't give a damn. All the stories about UK railways come from this period and I do not want to return to it.

I am sure there is a way to run a nationalised service efficiently but I am not convinced we have the skill or desire to do it here.
 
kcdionysus said:
You're right. Looking at some actual figures, £1.9bn goes to network rail from the train operators and this is then supported by £4bn from the state so this must be the third/two thirds I saw. The snippet must have been referring to just Network Rail costs.

On a grander scale to operate a compete train service, based on these figures, it seems 59% comes from passenger fares, 31% from government and 10% from commercial operations and other revenue streams.
Click to expand...

Assuming that other income to network rail is freight, I am shocked how low it is.
 
cutting42 said:
I am sure there is a way to run a nationalised service efficiently but I am not convinced we have the skill or desire to do it here.
Click to expand...
It is already difficult enough to maintain a sparkling new railway system, every single railway company in the world works at a loss. I wouldn't want to save a rusty railway system.
 
Gerald said:
income is 9 billion , once the neglected infastructure is dealt with , there is no reason why a government couldnt run it for this sum or with a minor subsidy .
Click to expand...

Unfortunately as has been proven by every government since forever, there are loads of reasons why it cannot be done but basic incompetence seems to cover most of them.

I am unconvinced that it is that easy to provide the required service with the structure we have and current employment levels in the industry. If you started from scratch with new stuff and a whole new staffing structure then maybe.

The infrastructure it the 900lb gorilla in the room. As the various HS projects and WCML upgrade projects have highlighted, it is spectacularly expensive and we are always playing catchup due to lack of investment for the last 100 years. Also we live in a small and highly populated country meaning every big project costs massively more.
 
kcdionysus said:
There isn't a specific breakdown but the 'other income' is declared as commercial operations such as stations, shops and car parks. Not sure where freight traffic comes into this graphic tbh??

http://orr.gov.uk/about-orr/open-rail/how-the-rail-industry-works/railway-funding-in-britain
Click to expand...

I looked up freight income and it estimates around 870 million annually, don't know if that is in the figures or where.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/484/freight-conclusions-jan-2013.pdf
 
Mick P said:
Don't spend it on anything. Save it and get the debt down.
Click to expand...

This is of course the very worst answer possible and implies the poster has failed to learn anything from the last 6 years of failed policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top