Campaign grows to switch the building of HS2 station to Sheffield city

[Haydn1971]

Some interesting perspectives here, people keep suggesting that we should be investing in our current railways, well HS2 is just that, the current lines are outmoded and are difficult to improve on, other than perhaps electrification and some minor alignment changes. HS2 provides a dedicated new line that primarily shifts lots of long distance passengers to new fast line, there is a huge secondary benefit in that once these long distance trains are gone from our current lines, more services can be provided for local and regional services. The whole idea that HS2 is all about London is missing the point, our current railways are so full, improvements are near on impossible, HS2 allows the local improvements to be done as well.

[foxy lady]

Some interesting perspectives here, people keep suggesting that we should be investing in our current railways, well HS2 is just that, the current lines are outmoded and are difficult to improve on, other than perhaps electrification and some minor alignment changes. HS2 provides a dedicated new line that primarily shifts lots of long distance passengers to new fast line, there is a huge secondary benefit in that once these long distance trains are gone from our current lines, more services can be provided for local and regional services. The whole idea that HS2 is all about London is missing the point, our current railways are so full, improvements are near on impossible, HS2 allows the local improvements to be done as well.

 

Well current projected cost of HS2 has now risen to £55.7 billion, or around £2000 for every household in the land. This when the railways turn over around £7.5 billion in total. That's turnover not profit.

When you say the current lines are outmoded and difficult to improve on, have you not taken into account that electrification will increase speeds and capacity.

Just to get these figures into context British manufacturing industries combined turnover last year was just over £200 billion. Turnover not profit. That means they intend to spend 1/4 of the turnover of our entire manufacturing industry on one rail project. The country is massively in debt. We have a massive deficit between what the country earns through taxation and what it spends. We are having to cut spending in order to pay our way. We cannot afford to improve our health service and yet we can chuck away £55.7 billion building a railway that won't be taking passengers for 30 years.

[Cyclone]

A name will add more character than a number

 

Just imagine they number all beer and wine with numbers instead of giving them a name

 

This point is completely trivial and meaningless. It has nothing to do with whether HS2 will or will not be built, or whether it will have a stop in South Yorkshire or at foxyladies door (and even then she wouldn't use it).

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2016 at 16:28 ----------

 

Well current projected cost of HS2 has now risen to £55.7 billion, or around £2000 for every household in the land. This when the railways turn over around £7.5 billion in total. That's turnover not profit.

When you say the current lines are outmoded and difficult to improve on, have you not taken into account that electrification will increase speeds and capacity.

Just to get these figures into context British manufacturing industries combined turnover last year was just over £200 billion. Turnover not profit. That means they intend to spend 1/4 of the turnover of our entire manufacturing industry on one rail project. The country is massively in debt. We have a massive deficit between what the country earns through taxation and what it spends. We are having to cut spending in order to pay our way. We cannot afford to improve our health service and yet we can chuck away £55.7 billion building a railway that won't be taking passengers for 30 years.

 

Nice comparison of apples to oranges. You compare the cost of a project that will take 30 years for completion with the revenue of a single year and then say it's 1/4 of the turnover of the entire manufacturing sector.

Or to put it another way, it's less than 1% of the turnover of the manufacturing sector over the duration of the project (if my 30 year number is correct, I haven't checked it).

[foxy lady]

This point is completely trivial and meaningless. It has nothing to do with whether HS2 will or will not be built, or whether it will have a stop in South Yorkshire or at foxyladies door (and even then she wouldn't use it).

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2016 at 16:28 ----------

 

 

Nice comparison of apples to oranges. You compare the cost of a project that will take 30 years for completion with the revenue of a single year and then say it's 1/4 of the turnover of the entire manufacturing sector.

Or to put it another way, it's less than 1% of the turnover of the manufacturing sector over the duration of the project (if my 30 year number is correct, I haven't checked it).

 

Now who's comaping apples ans oranges? Network Rail have just had £38 billion of debt taken over by the government. We cannot afford this expenditure. When you say the cost will be absorbed over 30 years, this isn't the cost of Network Rail. This is an additional cost to Network Rail who are already losing money like it were water. How on earth can we afford £55.7 billion for a duplicate railway line. It would pay off all the NHS's debts and then run the entire NHS for 6 months.

One day someone will call in these debts and someone will have to pay them.

[Cyclone]

It isn't a cost to network rail at all, they aren't funding HS2, it's a central government infrastructure project, over a number of decades that you were comparing to a single year of the output of the manufacturing sector.

Government debt is an issue, but it's not something that can be "called in".

 

What are you proposing instead, that we don't invest in infrastructure (which increases the economic capacity of the country) and instead just pay for 1.5 years of the NHS. Then what?

[foxy lady]

It isn't a cost to network rail at all, they aren't funding HS2, it's a central government infrastructure project, over a number of decades that you were comparing to a single year of the output of the manufacturing sector.

Government debt is an issue, but it's not something that can be "called in".

 

What are you proposing instead, that we don't invest in infrastructure (which increases the economic capacity of the country) and instead just pay for 1.5 years of the NHS. Then what?

 

It doesn't really matter what you care to call it. It is a cost that will fall on UK tax payers. It can either be paid by them as increased taxes or by further cuts to other services. Trying to dress it up as something else won't fool anyone.

Interesting public opinion has turned against HS2. As costs have spiralled so has opposition. The public favour upgrading the existing system and spending more money on better rail links between Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool.

The problem for Sheffield is that construction of HS2 to Birmingham is due to commence in a year or two. Any link to Sheffield won't get underway until 2030 at the earliest. There are a lot of general elections between now and 2030. As the cost of HS2 gets out of control the appetite of the electorate to fund it will evaporate. I can easily see £50 billion being spent on a line through Birmingham to Manchester and improvements between Manchest and Leeds before the plug is pulled on the whole idiotic business. And before anyone spends a penny on anything to benefit Sheffield. But Sheffield will get its share of the bill.

The £55.7 billion is just the cost of building the lines. There is the cost of running them on top of that.

Last opinion poll I saw had twice as many against HS2 as for it, and twice as many supporting an upgrade of the current system as supporting HS2, particularly the northers city links.

Just wait till the protestors start strapping themselves to trees.

Edited May 22, 2016 by foxy lady

[dutch]

Just waved my friend going to st Pancras goodby, the journey will only take 140 minutes. Anyone made any realistic estimate yet on what a HS ticket is gonna cost.

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2016 at 19:06 ----------

 

Cyclone, all my points are pointless and trivial, just like this whole topic.

My friend ticket to st Pancras is a business expense but the company got an off peak return because the open return was too expensive for this company that employs thousands of people.

 

I know few people in London who have money, they would come to meadow hall for shopping but not bother with the city centre.

[Shef1985]

Just waved my friend going to st Pancras goodby, the journey will only take 140 minutes. Anyone made any realistic estimate yet on what a HS ticket is gonna cost.

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2016 at 19:06 ----------

 

Cyclone, all my points are pointless and trivial, just like this whole topic.

My friend ticket to st Pancras is a business expense but the company got an off peak return because the open return was too expensive for this company that employs thousands of people.

 

I know few people in London who have money, they would come to meadow hall for shopping but not bother with the city centre.

 

Too expensive for a company that employs thousands? Nor can they afford decent accountants by the sound of it because surely they can deduct expenses from their tax? Does he work for Miser and Plonker's of Bond Street?

 

On HS2 the time from London to Leeds will be 90 mins. Because of massively increased capacity the ticket prices will not be at a premium. So says the blurb at least.

 

It's due to be finished by 2033 so where are these 30 year time lines I've seen mentioned here coming from?

Edited May 23, 2016 by Shef1985

[alchemist]

Too expensive for a company that employs thousands?

 

Just because a company employs thousands does not mean they have money to burn. The organisation I work for also employs thousands but policy is to use off peak, specific trains with single tickets where this proves cheaper. You need to have very good reasons to be using an expensive open return and I would NOT say I work for Marley and Scrooge, just a company with a sound financial policy.

[Shef1985]

Just because a company employs thousands does not mean they have money to burn. The organisation I work for also employs thousands but policy is to use off peak, specific trains with single tickets where this proves cheaper. You need to have very good reasons to be using an expensive open return and I would NOT say I work for Marley and Scrooge, just a company with a sound financial policy.

 

If you very rarely travel but when you do the company won't foot you a decent time ticket home (when they are all tax deductible anyway) then you work for a stingy company.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Shef1985