And you’re being repeatedly told by multiple people that your point, if indeed there is one, doesn’t “work”. The onus on people communicating is generally not on the receiver. Some reflection would indeed be a good idea.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
HS2 advert - red face!
- Thread starter AndrewE
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I’ve responded to your argument that somehow spending should be the same per head other the whole population. I don’t agree, for the reasons set out, and indeed that isn’t how spending works in the real world.
The last paragraph didn’t seem to make a substantive point, other than an attempt to discredit me by (wrongly) suggest I think people in London are superior.
Last edited:
LYuen
Member
The China Railway Corporation (State-owned company) borrowed money to build high speed rail. Once completed, the company owns and operates it.
Since high speed rail were built in very fast pace, it build up a huge amount of debt.
Despite enormous ridership, their profit is merely more than the interest of the loan and the debt was repaid very slowly.
Ironically, China despite self proclaiming as a socialist country, adopts the most capitalistic approach in building the railway. The government does not directly bear the burden of the cost. Instead it is the state-owned company that invested and bore the financial risks (though nothing stops the government to write off or transfer the debt if needed)
As did Transpennine services which served Liverpool and Manchester…
Interesting, thanks. It does suggest the system is able to cover revenue and capital costs, albeit as you say the latter very slowly although on a very long life asset that seems reasonable.
TurbineEnginee
Member
Unless we have a vested interest in perpetuating disparity, the real issue isn’t the type of transport—it’s where the people are.
You argue that cities should be the focus, which primarily benefits London and the South East. But in the North, where there are half as many people to be moved, we should spend half as much on moving them.
Whether that means more intercity or more metro is irrelevant. What matters is that funding for moving people should be based on the number of people who need to be moved.
Give the regions the money, and let them make the decisions.
It would be better if we stopped thinking of London as national and everything else as regional.
London is simply another region.
We should address the unique needs of all regions equally, and investing based on population is as equitable as it gets.
Last edited:
It would be nice if the per capita gross expenditure in the North (or the South West) did match that in the Home Counties - accounting for historic investment too.
I haven’t argued cities should be the focus, I’ve argued the investment should be made where it is most economically beneficial, albeit that naturally favours cities and areas of high population density.
You are starting from the premise than spending should be the same per head everywhere, based on an arbitrary definition of fairness.
Well, no. We should allocate resources based on economic benefits, as explained in #72 above (which you have ignored).
Doing what you suggest would be a mad use of resources, hence why it is not an approach adopted by any country in the world, or favoured by any mainstream political party AFAIK.
Suggesting unique needs can be addressed equally is a contradiction in terms.
You also seem to be confusing equity and equality.
TurbineEnginee
Member
So went the Americas, so went India, so went most of Ireland — now Scotland’s at risk, and maybe the North of England will follow.
It’s a symptom of a larger problem.
Repeatedly insisting that what’s best for London is best for everyone else has been sinking this country slowly into oblivion for centuries.
It’s not true that countries can’t invest in rail transportation equitably. Germany and Norway do, and do it well.
Public investment in rail should be spread where the public are. Relying on rigid, archaic formulas to avoid doing what’s actually needed doesn’t serve anyone.
Continuing to invest in already successful areas at the expense of everything else limits national output and ultimately destroys all sense of cohesion.
It will eventually end up with the country of London, and god bless, you’re welcome to it.
It’s a symptom of a larger problem.
Repeatedly insisting that what’s best for London is best for everyone else has been sinking this country slowly into oblivion for centuries.
It’s not true that countries can’t invest in rail transportation equitably. Germany and Norway do, and do it well.
Public investment in rail should be spread where the public are. Relying on rigid, archaic formulas to avoid doing what’s actually needed doesn’t serve anyone.
Continuing to invest in already successful areas at the expense of everything else limits national output and ultimately destroys all sense of cohesion.
It will eventually end up with the country of London, and god bless, you’re welcome to it.
Last edited:
Cross City
Member
Hyperbolic nonsense.
renegademaster
Established Member
I see the Tony Blair institute has taught them how to hide things from the books even though it's basically the same overall to the budget
TurbineEnginee
Member
Which part?
The part that states that Britain’s power and influence is in long term decline, or the part that identifies significant populations that forcefully rejected rule from London?
All I call for is for trains to be available to transport people where there are people to be transported.
Last edited:
Cross City
Member
The bit about London being its own country.
- Status