truman Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Yeah maybe. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit. I just find it odd that we sell of the things making us money. East Coast mainline as well. Why not keep them so that when the books are balanced better we have a nice earner that's not just tax receipts. Maybe we'd be making more by paying off some debt with the 750 million and saving the interest? Don't know how much we'd be paying on 750 million a year..
PeteMorris Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 That's where SgtKates analogy falls down..it's not the same thing..How is not owning the eurostar stopping the UK from working? Potential profit..yep you're right..they may make a loss next year.. I agree....it doesn't stop the UK working. I'd liken it more to a guy that buys a house specifically to rent out....A smaller income until such time as he wants to 'cash in'.....But cashes in at the first opportunity on the pretext it's going to benefit his cousin in Australia who he's never met! Either way....It's 'selling national assets'.....And then bleating about it, on the pretext it's all for Joe Public the taxpayers benefit.... Does anyone reading this see any 'real' and tangible benefit to Joe Public? We've already been promised savage cuts in public services....councils cutting jobs...etc...etc....
truman Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I agree....it doesn't stop the UK working. I'd liken it more to a guy that buys a house specifically to rent out....A smaller income until such time as he wants to 'cash in'.....But cashes in at the first opportunity on the pretext it's going to benefit his cousin in Australia who he's never met! .. You need to explain this a bit more..it makes no sense to me.. it's the UK that will be getting the cash from selling a UK asset.. not Australia..
tzijlstra Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 The final bill for HS2, which IMO they are still massively under-estimating. Ah right, I thought we were talking about Eurostar. HS2 won't cost more than 100 billion, and even if it does, it is not a case of "what if we gave everybody a share of that money". The infrastructure will be leased to rail companies, like the East Coast line and the government will seek to recoup its investment. In the meantime the country needs to ensure rail capacity is increased, particularly north/south and you can't do that by mucking about in the margins. I am not a fan of railways, I'd much rather see the introduction of low-carbon regional flights, but there is a case for HS2/3 I suppose.
PeteMorris Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 You need to explain this a bit more..it makes no sense to me.. it's the UK that will be getting the cash from selling a UK asset.. not Australia.. :hihi: Now who's being pedantic?...Ok, a cousin in Torquay....
geared Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 See my earlier post..we only made 21 million from Eurostar last year...if our share sells we'll have had 35 years of profit all in one go.. think of the interest the plasterer will have saved.. 35 years of potential profit...based on last years performance....at of course today's prices, which almost certainly won't be applicable in 35 years time. Yep the plasterer saved lots on interest payments....But sadly can't work, cos he's got no transport.... yea, but if they need to plough a ton of money into it all in the next 5-10 years to replace the trains and stuff, suddenly the long-term profits take a pretty big hit.
truman Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 yea, but if they need to plough a ton of money into it all in the next 5-10 years to replace the trains and stuff, suddenly the long-term profits take a pretty big hit. Yep...that's part of it..
geared Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 In the meantime the country needs to ensure rail capacity is increased, particularly north/south and you can't do that by mucking about in the margins. I am not a fan of railways, I'd much rather see the introduction of low-carbon regional flights, but there is a case for HS2/3 I suppose. It does, but do we need such a 'halo' project - is there really no other alternative?? I mean realistically, when it's actually open - are the tickets even going to be remotely affordable?? They'll be priced higher than the standard train I assume?? Rail Travel is already ridiculously expensive as it is, then there's another multi-billion pound investment that needs to be recuperated on top of all of it.
tzijlstra Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 It does, but do we need such a 'halo' project - is there really no other alternative?? I mean realistically, when it's actually open - are the tickets even going to be remotely affordable?? They'll be priced higher than the standard train I assume?? Rail Travel is already ridiculously expensive as it is, then there's another multi-billion pound investment that needs to be recuperated on top of all of it. Wherever you put a railway it is going to cost money, whether high speed or not. The reason I am not a fan of railways is because it is really expensive and in my opinion doesn't offer value for money.
Alan Ladd Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 That's exactly what I mean about one lot blaming the other lot...No matter which way it goes. It's such long term investment that they can easily afford to be risky, or blasé with their estimates, because they know full well they won't be doing that job, when, or if it goes pear shaped. That's how it works. and whats wrong with that?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now