Infrastructure Investment That Looks Less Necessary Since Covid

[JonathanH]

The UK, it can be fairly easily argued, isn't even engaged in the bare minimum of infrastructure investment required of a modern G7 state.

Yes, but it has to work within the incredibly scarce resources it has.

Hospitals, schools, public service employment, moves to increase private investment, the list is near endless.

There literally isn't the money for investment in any of those things, let alone the railways.

It is really difficult to see how this country is ever going to be able to afford more than a modicum of investment in infrastructure in the future and clearly that results in choices needing to be made.

 

[yorksrob]

True - but it is still around as a brand

To be fair, my expectations would be satisfied with the pre-covid timetable on this line.

 

[Wynd]

Yes, but it has to work within the incredibly scarce resources it has.


There literally isn't the money for investment in any of those things, let alone the railways.

It is really difficult to see how this country is ever going to be able to afford more than a modicum of investment in infrastructure in the future and clearly that results in choices needing to be made.

The same, the precise same arguments were made in 2009/10/11, and we got a decade of stagnant wages and now we are here, on the brink of a sterling deficit crisis, and a cost of living crisis. Both of which would be less acute if GDP were higher and people had more money to weather the storm.

Treasury orthodoxy has put the UK in a parlous state. Not borrowing to invest whilst rates were at rock bottom, and then index linking Gilts putting us on the hook for eye watering debt interest repayments, were the worst possible choices that could have been made.

The Treasury made these choices, against much advice, which have stifled growth, along with successive Tory governments.

And now, its more of the same. "We cant invest", despite the lack of investment putting us in this mess. But hey, if you (not you specifically JH) want to keep digging, be my guest.

If your final sentence proves to be right, its only a matter of time before the UK (if it is still a UK by then) drops out of the G7 and living standards fall below everyone's expectations of what it means to live in 21st century Britain.

Investment is beyond crucial. The economy desperately needs it. I only hope that this will become the prevailing narrative before its too late.

 

[Bertie the bus]

And I bet it was full every time you used it.

I've only used it once and as the driver walked through to change ends he said 'This train is for Huddersfield, not Leeds, you know?' When I said I knew and stayed on it he seemed quite surprised. Needless to say I was the only passenger from Castleford.

 

[stuu]

Yes, but it has to work within the incredibly scarce resources it has.


There literally isn't the money for investment in any of those things, let alone the railways.

It is really difficult to see how this country is ever going to be able to afford more than a modicum of investment in infrastructure in the future and clearly that results in choices needing to be made.

Scarce resources? The UK is the sixth biggest economy on the planet. The lack of money for investment is a political choice. Italy has a far better rail network, which is almost entirely electrified. Spain has the world's second longest high speed rail network, and possibly the best motorway network anywhere. These are countries with lower per capita incomes than the UK.

There's plenty of money, "we" just choose to spend it differently. Britons spend £10bn per year on make-up, for example

 

[Kingston Dan]

The same, the precise same arguments were made in 2009/10/11, and we got a decade of stagnant wages and now we are here, on the brink of a sterling deficit crisis, and a cost of living crisis. Both of which would be less acute if GDP were higher and people had more money to weather the storm.

Treasury orthodoxy has put the UK in a parlous state. Not borrowing to invest whilst rates were at rock bottom, and then index linking Gilts putting us on the hook for eye watering debt interest repayments, were the worst possible choices that could have been made.

The Treasury made these choices, against much advice, which have stifled growth, along with successive Tory governments.

And now, its more of the same. "We cant invest", despite the lack of investment putting us in this mess. But hey, if you (not you specifically JH) want to keep digging, be my guest.

If your final sentence proves to be right, its only a matter of time before the UK (if it is still a UK by then) drops out of the G7 and living standards fall below everyone's expectations of what it means to live in 21st century Britain.

Investment is beyond crucial. The economy desperately needs it. I only hope that this will become the prevailing narrative before its too late.

The 1997-2010 Labour government accepted this Treasury orthodoxy too.

The problem is the Treasury and it's time for it to go.

 

[Bald Rick]

Italy has a far better rail network

Most Italians I know would argue against that.

Spain has the world's second longest high speed rail network, and possibly the best motorway network anywhere.

And loads of space to build them!

 

[stuu]

Most Italians I know would argue against that.

Of course they would, but objectively would they be right?

Italy has already built high speed railways between all its major cities, and the network is still being expanded... the historic main lines are all electric, and have decent frequencies and cheap tickets (although Trenitalia seem pathologically opposed to clockface timetables). Cities generally have decent commuter services, under the graffiti.

 

[Mikey C]

Of course they would, but objectively would they be right?

Italy has already built high speed railways between all its major cities, and the network is still being expanded... the historic main lines are all electric, and have decent frequencies and cheap tickets (although Trenitalia seem pathologically opposed to clockface timetables). Cities generally have decent commuter services, under the graffiti.

I've seen some pathetic frequencies in Italy as well.

And (ignoring the current Avanti shambles) not many city pairings in Europe will have the frequency we have between London and Birmingham, and London and Manchester.

And loads of space to build them!

The overcrowded nature of the UK, especially London and the Southeast, plus beautiful countryside in the empty bits, makes building anything horrendously expensive. We get far fewer bangs for our buck than Spain for example.

 

[RobShipway]

I cannot see that there will be much, if any new electrification of lines within the next 20 - 30 years, due to the cost of the installation. Especially going on the cost of the Great Western mainline. I know some lessons have been learned from that issue, so Network Rail is able to keep some costs down.

Even though it may take trains longer distance, I don't think Hydrogen is the answer and do feel that it could be dangerous for passengers in the same way as the Hindenburg Airship disaster. The answer is as with the class 8xx and class 75x units, bi-mode. But the trains should be designed such that the diesel engines at a later date could be taken out and exchanged for battery power units in their place. Hopefully, battery pack technology as it has done in the last 10 years or more, will get better with being able to fit in more power in smaller battery packs that can then be used to be powering the likes of class 8xx and 75x units.

 

[Bald Rick]

I cannot see that there will be much, if any new electrification of lines within the next 20 - 30 years, due to the cost of the installation.

Apart from those already being electrified now?

 

[Irascible]

I cannot see that there will be much, if any new electrification of lines within the next 20 - 30 years, due to the cost of the installation. Especially going on the cost of the Great Western mainline. I know some lessons have been learned from that issue, so Network Rail is able to keep some costs down.

Even though it may take trains longer distance, I don't think Hydrogen is the answer and do feel that it could be dangerous for passengers in the same way as the Hindenburg Airship disaster. The answer is as with the class 8xx and class 75x units, bi-mode. But the trains should be designed such that the diesel engines at a later date could be taken out and exchanged for battery power units in their place. Hopefully, battery pack technology as it has done in the last 10 years or more, will get better with being able to fit in more power in smaller battery packs that can then be used to be powering the likes of class 8xx and 75x units.

The Hinderburg disaster was mostly it's skin catching fire - if it'd been full of helium and the skin caught fire we'd still have had the same disaster. Hydrogen will explode if burned in an enclosed space ( and then again so will most fuels - that is rather the point of internal combustion fuels ) but if let in the atmosphere it'll probably make a blast & that'll be that, unless there's a crack in a tank/line & then you get a torch. It doesn't stick to things & then burn like most fuels we use now. Needless to say, any hydrogen tanks are going to be more crash-proof than the vehicle they're attached to, which is why the system ends up as energy dense as batteries ( which aren't exactly inert things themselves - I don't want to be anywhere remotely near a burning lithium battery pack ).

Electrification ( partial or full ) will be economically the best answer for fuel at some point, whiether it's more economical in overall economic terms than just not having a service is another matter.

 

[stuu]

I've seen some pathetic frequencies in Italy as well.

And (ignoring the current Avanti shambles) not many city pairings in Europe will have the frequency we have between London and Birmingham, and London and Manchester.


The overcrowded nature of the UK, especially London and the Southeast, plus beautiful countryside in the empty bits, makes building anything horrendously expensive. We get far fewer bangs for our buck than Spain for example.

I wasn't really wanting to start an argument about comparative differences between countries, but to point out that the notion we as a country can't afford infrastructure is nonsense. Because it is

 

[Wynd]

The 1997-2010 Labour government accepted this Treasury orthodoxy too.

The problem is the Treasury and it's time for it to go.

Agreed. These are political choices. The Treasury isn't supposed to be political...

I see the arguments for abolition, but, one step short that would be a massive improvement wouldn't be to split the fiscal and economic growth departments so they do not fall under the same roof. Then move them to different cities. Put the Growth department somewhere where transport and growth is lacking, (north of England perhaps) and put the Fiscal department somewhere at least 100 miles away from that.

Every time investment is proposed, we hear screeches of "but what will it cost" whilst simultaneously ignoring the massive costs in economic growth of restricting investment. Its enough to drive some of us insane!

I wasn't really wanting to start an argument about comparative differences between countries, but to point out that the notion we as a country can't afford infrastructure is nonsense. Because it is

The last 10 years or so saw the lowest borrowing costs in history. This would have been a prime opportunity to issue very long dated Gilts and invest heavily in infrastructure. Many called for this policy, and it was ignored by the Treasury in favor of Austerity, which led to a decade of stagnant wages, leaving the UK public totally exposed to any cost of living increases.

We must invest. We need to have an honest conversation with the markets. Present a credible long term plan for growth, issue debt that is long dated to cover it, get wages and productivity up. Or go backwards in a hurry.

 

[edwin_m]

It's a good point that the railway needs to be improved in many ways if we are serious about reducing road traffic. Rail has about 10% of both passenger-miles and freight tonne-miles in the UK. But that 10% isn't evenly distributed, there's a sort of "triage" effect and it's important to categorise the flows of passengers or freight that a suggested intervention would benefit. I've given some examples below but there are many flows that are more difficult to put into one of the three categories.

Rail isn't and probably never will be suitable for many smaller and more diffuse flows, such as passenger movements wholly within rural or outer-suburban areas (unless a heavy rail service exists anyway or flows can be aggregated enough to justify light rail) or freight distribution to households and small businesses. So rail isn't affected much if the volumes change on these flows.

In the middle category, including things such as non-London passengers and long-distance intermodal freight, there may be scope to improve rail market share with suitable investment. Even if Covid has reduced the total market, it may still be possible for rail to capture a larger share of that market.

There is also a category of flows where rail dominates the market. These include central London commuting and the bulk haulage of aggregates from quarries to city terminals. Investing in these won't attract traffic to rail because there's nothing more to attract (electrification would allow them to be handled with less environmental downside but isn't really the subject for this post). So part of the question becomes whether Covid has reduced the total size of these flows or at least reduced their projected growth over time. I'd say there's a strong case for this happening on central London commuting, so schemes that are driven by commuter capacity will become harder to justify.

 

[Arkeeos]

None really, all the infrastructure investment we talk about now was needed 10years ago ideally, so if anything we should be thankful that we have a period of time to catch up.