TRANSPORT | High Speed Rail

[madferret]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

Ignore. Good logic.

That's the most sensible thing you have said for some time. Thanks for the advice.

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by madferret

That's the most sensible thing you have said for some time. Thanks for the advice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...he-future.html

For the Cuadrilla chief executive, who previously worked for mining giant BHP Billiton and Marathon Oil, the case against fracking has been commandeered by extremists.
“We’ve heard everything from suggestions that Blackpool will sink beneath the waves to the idea that we will use the wells for nuclear waste,” he says.
“You cannot have a conversation if that is the basis of dissent. We are very happy to have a fact-based conversation. Actually, most people haven’t made up their mind and would like to have a fact-based conversation.”

LNGcat
Mad Ferret

You are these people. I have yet to be convinced but you must be spitting mad to ignore any other consideration. Nasty, vindictive and weak as you are. There is no science without inspection and proof. Passenger levels in 2032 are nothing but a forecast. Except in your world. Very sad and scientifically weak.

[Joseph_Locke]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

However, rail traffic volumes declined for a number of decades only picking up in the last 15 years to reach a new peak.

Why?

Petrol prices? If so, with electric cars being universally accepted as replacing combustion certainly way before HS2 reaches Manchester perhaps demand will decline or remain static? Growth figures have to take into consideration all other likely impacts.

This is of course ignoring technology improvements, which were never a factor in the previous 100 years to this extent?

LNGCats appears to be a very sad individual who does not understand the principle of bias and seeking independant facts. You can quote as many reports (funded by whom for what sought outcome?) as you like but similar voices prattled on about the debt mountain and house prices. I knew house prices were not sane and I feel the current rail franchise system is similar. Not grounded in commercial reality.

Remind us of this £30bn Network Rail debt. What is happening with that, have we found a rug to keep it under? This has no impact on UK life? It is fine? How much did it grow by over the last 5 years and how are we to afford another £30bn investment with the debt already there?

Ignore. Good logic.

I'm trying not to ignore you, very hard, but what has the state of NR's finances to do with the need (or not) for additional infrastructure?

I don't think any government since Gladstone has done the railways any favours, but we can't now influence the voting habits of our ancestors, so the future is all we have.

Technical advances are all very well, but the physics of the situation is that moving large masses long distances will always be the preserve of metal on metal railways, most likely electrically hauled. A car is a car, irrespective of fuel, and just making them electric is not going to eliminate rush-hour traffic jams.

The mid-eighties decline was a direct result of the railways being obliged to raise fares to manage demand - I know, I was there. However, the figures I quoted were based on the last ten years, so that point is irrelevant. I acknowledged that 5% steady growth was unlikely to be sustained, but you have missed a point; if electric replaces petrol, what will aircraft run on post peak oil?

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by Joseph_Locke

I'm trying not to ignore you, very hard, but what has the state of NR's finances to do with the need (or not) for additional infrastructure?

I don't think any government since Gladstone has done the railways any favours, but we can't now influence the voting habits of our ancestors, so the future is all we have.

Technical advances are all very well, but the physics of the situation is that moving large masses long distances will always be the preserve of metal on metal railways, most likely electrically hauled. A car is a car, irrespective of fuel, and just making them electric is not going to eliminate rush-hour traffic jams.

The mid-eighties decline was a direct result of the railways being obliged to raise fares to manage demand - I know, I was there. However, the figures I quoted were based on the last ten years, so that point is irrelevant. I acknowledged that 5% steady growth was unlikely to be sustained, but you have missed a point; if electric replaces petrol, what will aircraft run on post peak oil?

Aircraft, with regret are already flying trials with crop grown fuels. Inertia is caused by cost not science. God help the world if America decides to grow oil fuel (to join it's gas bonanza).

You mentioned the 1980/90's that people were priced off the railways? Remind me of the price rise coefficient again? How many years has it being running and ahead of inflation?

Please tell me you are not trying to ignore me due to the mere mention of facts!

I want HS2 but if you think a £30bn debt by Network Rail is nothing of relevance to a new rail line then God help you with your desire to see HS2 started.

Basic maths and commonsense will hold sway now ahead of loan fuelled dreams?

This is a discussion so why the hate? Why the venom?

Getting to seem like the flag issue in NI in here, a lot of people do not like debate. Accusing people of being thick!

You just said cost was a factor of rail decline but ignore the rail price escalator which will end with one result. No commuter can afford the ticket and crash. There is a ceiling, not yet reached.

IGNORE!?

The average rise in regulated fares, mainly season tickets, will be 6.2 per cent, from January. This is because the Government is allowing train firms to raise fares, from January, by 3 per cent above July’s retail price index figure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-fares-up.html

10th consecutive year of above inflation rail fare rises

Not relevant? Demand will go on forever? Not in the real world. Cost of HS2 and demand is not a given.

[Joseph_Locke]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

Please tell me you are not trying to ignore me due to the mere mention of facts!

This is a discussion so why the hate? Why the venom?

Venomous? Grow a pair, FFS.

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by Joseph_Locke

Venomous? Grow a pair, FFS.

Erm, who mentioned the cowards way of ignoring? Funny how that gets ignored. Good debating skills there then!

Do you want to persuade the tax payers to fund this or just call them names and ignore them? You are aware you are seeking £30bn and Network Rail already owes £30bn and rising faster than a rocket?

Hmm. With amateur support like that, you will not win parliamentary backing for funding. Ignore all you like, but you need to show better persuasion skills.

[madferret]

Ignoring inflammatory or irrelevant comments is not cowardice, simply common sense.

Just one question if you want debate - where do you get this figure of £30bn for the Network Rail debt? Last I saw it was £28bn, against £45bn of assets. That sounds healthy enough to me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...igher-spending

The rest of your spouting is speculative and you have some kind of agenda (I don't know what because you don't make a lot of sense) so don't be surprised if I keep clear of this thread for a while.

[Dave_Kitson]

I'm fully in support of HS2. As far as I'm concerned, this line can't open soon enough.

I'm hoping to start working for a new client in Old Trafford so this line is gonna be pretty handy when I travel up to Old Trafford for work on Saturday afternoons!

Would be even more convenient if they built the HS2 station at Pomona!

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by madferret

Last I saw it was £28bn, against £45bn of assets. That sounds healthy enough to me.

Are your serious? You are saying £28bn is fine but £30bn is not?

Assets? How do you realise those assets exactly?

Sorry that is financial illiteracy.

[madferret]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

Are your serious? You are saying £28bn is fine but £30bn is not?

No, I'm asking you where you get your figures from. £2bn may be small change to you but if you want to quote facts then at least get them right or give a source. Made up numbers discredit the rest of your spurious arguments.

[Farsight]

I had a meeting on Friday in Sussex. It lasted until a bit before 1pm, whereafter I drove back to Poole and got there just after 3pm. A colleague worked on in Sussex until 4pm then took the train home to Birmingham. But when he went to buy a ticket at Euston he was stunned at how expensive it was, and ended up waiting until 9pm to get a (1st-class) ticket for £20. He finally got home after 11pm. Sheesh, am I glad I didn't let the train take the strain.

It would be nice to think that HS2 would change this, but I really don't think it will. And meanwhile our precious government is giving money away to foreign despots and for climate aid. And Virgin nearly lost their franchise due to cynical civil servant corruption, old folk have the heat or eat dilemma, and I still can't peel off the M6 onto the M56 to Manchester. I can't drive some decent route other than the M6 either. What with all that, along with the jam-tomorrows that never came, I just have no faith in the HS2 dangled promise. It will keep you guys quiet for a while, then before you know it there will be another "national" project like Crossrail, and yet again world-city London will be getting the lion's share of your tranport tax dollars whilst you go grey waiting for Godot.

You know, I'd rather see taxpayers' money spent on other transport improvements, like road and rail connections between the North-West and the East Midlands then on to London. Anybody watch X factor at the weekend? From Manchester Central?

[LNGCats]

Significant investment is taking place to improve rail connections from Manchester to locations other than London.

See Northern hub and electrification as examples.

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by madferret

No, I'm asking you where you get your figures from. £2bn may be small change to you but if you want to quote facts then at least get them right or give a source. Made up numbers discredit the rest of your spurious arguments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...r-decades.html

Network Rail’s debt will continue to rise for another three decades, the group’s finance director has admitted, after half-year results showed its borrowings have broken through £28bn.

Rising £800m in 6months.

HS2 may be needed but the funds are not there boys.

You need to realise HS2 was dreamed off in a different world to the one we are and will live in.

Over the past four-and-a-half years, its borrowings have soared 42pc, from £19.7bn at the end of the 2008/09 financial year. Patrick Butcher, finance director of Network Rail, said that trend is unlikely to change for another “20 to 30 years” as Britain’s rail network is expanded to keep up with rising demand from commuters.

So in answer to your question, £30bn debt by this time next year? Let's argue about just how biblical a disaster we are looking at: death or dying, does it matter?

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

Significant investment is taking place to improve rail connections from Manchester to locations other than London. See Northern hub and electrification as examples.

And I'm very pleased about it. I was pleased about the Midland Main Line electrification too. See this Sheffield thread. But see the gap between Manchester and Sheffield on the map here? The Woodhead line used to cross that gap. I'm with these guys.

[Christopher125]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

So in answer to your question, £30bn debt by this time next year? Let's argue about just how biblical a disaster we are looking at: death or dying, does it matter?

Did you read the rest of the article?

"Our asset base is £45bn, our debt is £28bn. If you look at utility companies, National Grid, Thames Water, you’ll find debt-to-asset ratios very comparable to ours”

“We think debt levels...are perfectly sustainable and there is no need for them to come down”

“The point to be concerned is when you see Network Rail’s debt is static because it means we have stopped investing.”

Chris

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by Christopher125

Did you read the rest of the article?

"Our asset base is £45bn, our debt is £28bn. If you look at utility companies, National Grid, Thames Water, you’ll find debt-to-asset ratios very comparable to ours”

“We think debt levels...are perfectly sustainable and there is no need for them to come down”

“The point to be concerned is when you see Network Rail’s debt is static because it means we have stopped investing.”

Chris

You serious?

People saying my debt is not as big as yours is OK?

Why are they in debt? When did a water company last build a reservoir? Kilder in 1980?

£1trillion debt and rising is no cause for concern!

[Christopher125]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

You serious?

Absolutely - by its very nature infrastructure involves debt as it often involves large upfront costs recouped over the lifetime of the asset. As it's long term investment pushing Network Rail's debt up it's not a concern, as the spokesman said it would be more concerning if it wasn't and indeed most economists think that government spending on infrastructure should be increased.

Chris

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Most economists have no idea. If they did they would be called George Soros or The Sage of Omaha?

Debt at the level of NR is not healthy debt, it is out of control debt. Massive difference. Off the scale.

Debt needs to be financed from profit. Debt above turnover, with no profits and indeed massive losses (adding to the debt) is the end game from which there is no returning.

Simple maths. Anyone else think different? It is simple economics.

Spend on gas plants, maybe, they are needed anyway!

PS did you know the UK's largest power station, DRAX, in Yorkshire is being converted from coal to burn wood. I kid you not. Wood. 2013.

[Altfish]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

PS did you know the UK's largest power station, DRAX, in Yorkshire is being converted from coal to burn wood. I kid you not. Wood. 2013.

Hmm, one of the 6-burners is being converted to burn wood pellets with another two to follow; so Drax will be 50% biomass to help it reduce its emission and meet EU and UK targets.
As usual with antis, you get half-truths.

[iheartthenew]

The burning of these wood pellets isn't a good thing actually. They are being paid (subsidised) to burn a material that is currently recycled, these wooden pellets are the same stuff that gets turned into chipboard etc anyway, so now the power generators are buying it up, subsidised by us taxpayers , the furniture and construction industry has to pay greatly inflated prices for the stuff that's left... Of course the furniture and construction sectors are in such rude health too..

Sorry rant over...