• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Potential New Universal UK Park

Blackrock said:
They would be but the treasury is its own beast, bean counters that don’t (imo) always make the best longer term decisions.

Also the optics are something that should be considered.
Click to expand...
Yes, plus we've already got a major infrastructure project on the go with HS2. Money's all tied up now I'm afraid on the pointless train. No more theme park, soz.
 
Blackrock said:
Obviously that’s going to be an expense the tax payer are going to be paying for in perpetuity isn’t it? Train drivers working throughout the night etc.
Click to expand...
I would argue against this, remember that they will still have to pay for a trasin ticket so it would probably make a hughe amount of money, as people are traveling from london to the park (from hethrow, euston train station, the acctual city etc) and universal closes late in florida (I think 10/11 pm) so not only are guest going to be leaving at like 11-12 pm staff will also have to leave after that, then probably hourly or bi hourly trains or just keeping the station open and having the next train at like 6 it will probably have a large amount of traffic throughout the morning for staff, maintanence etc to get to work, then the people turn up arround 9-11 am for the park

Bert2theSpark said:
Personally, I believe that infrastructure spending should be treated differently from day-to-day spending, but the current Treasury orthodoxy doesn’t discriminate between borrowing for spending that’ll increase revenue tomorrow against regular spending, that won’t necessarily see a return.
Click to expand...
I fully agree, if you are borrowing to runthe country then that is bad, but borrowing to build a bridge, or a viaduct, etc then that isn't that bad and can be a good thing (if it is resposibly done and properly assesed)
 
I wouldn’t say HS2 is pointless. Anyone going around Crewe/Manchester etc knows it’s needed for capacity.

The amount of times my train is delayed due to it pulling into sidings to allow ‘fast’ trains to run past is ridiculous. Or platforms are full so the train is waiting way back or crawling at 20mph.

If anything this country isn’t ambitious enough. HS2 should be going to Scotland, into Wales, down to the south east.

Just like this project should happen.

Unfortunately our government past and present lack any long term ambition.
 
jibbsie said:
I would argue against this, remember that they will still have to pay for a trasin ticket so it would probably make a hughe amount of money, as people are traveling from london to the park (from hethrow, euston train station, the acctual city etc) and universal closes late in florida (I think 10/11 pm) so not only are guest going to be leaving at like 11-12 pm staff will also have to leave after that, then probably hourly or bi hourly trains or just keeping the station open and having the next train at like 6 it will probably have a large amount of traffic throughout the morning for staff, maintanence etc to get to work, then the people turn up arround 9-11 am for the park
Click to expand...
The government right now subsidise our train network to the tune of billions via tax payers even though it’s ‘private’. Train drivers have just walked away with huge pay rise which is effectively funded by the tax payer.

I’m not arguing against 24/7 trains. Personally
I think train routes should be running later anyway, but it will be a cost to the tax payer and the unions will squeeze every drop of juice out of the fruit at the taxpayers expense.
 
Blackrock said:
I wouldn’t say HS2 is pointless. Anyone going around Crewe/Manchester etc knows it’s needed for capacity.
Click to expand...
100% it is really anoying to live near the west coast main line and hear people complain that HS2 is pointless and will do nothing, that line is near if not at capacity, a train I used to catch was always 5 mins delayed. it will not only benifit bham/crew (if it still went there) it will benifit wales, bristol, excetter and all over where the est coast main line is as more trains can be added for those welsh or bristol stations, improving the avalibility of trains and reducing the amount of late trains
 
Blackrock said:
The government right now subsidise our train network to the tune of billions via tax payers even though it’s ‘private’. Train drivers have just walked away with huge pay rise which is effectively funded by the tax payer.

I’m not arguing against 24/7 trains. Personally
I think train routes should be running later anyway, but it will be a cost to the tax payer and the unions will squeeze every drop of juice out of the fruit at the taxpayers expense.
Click to expand...
I was more thinking the trains becoming public, I am not sure on how the arrangment will work (I don't think many people are) but the line, how ever it is done will probably generate income for the UK train company.
 
jibbsie said:
100% it is really anoying to live near the west coast main line and hear people complain that HS2 is pointless and will do nothing, that line is near if not at capacity, a train I used to catch was always 5 mins delayed. it will not only benifit bham/crew (if it still went there) it will benifit wales, bristol, excetter and all over where the est coast main line is as more trains can be added for those welsh or bristol stations, improving the avalibility of trains and reducing the amount of late trains
Click to expand...
I completely agree, it’s ridiculous. A faster route also makes more inter city trains possible/quicker etc.

Onto your second point I think generally it will be costing the taxpayers money if it’s 24/7 and in public ownership. We’ll all be paying for it, I’m not against because like I said I think later trains should be the standard elsewhere anyway. But it will be an additional cost somewhere down the line.
 
We'll see how useful HS2 is when it's finally finished (obviously will be years late) and we see how much tickets cost. Then we can wonder if it was worth the over £100 billion that it'll inevitably have cost by then (it'll run way over the latest predicted costs again). You know how it works, contracts for matey boys and future favours. Going off topic anyway, so I won't mention it again.
 
BarryZola said:
We'll see how useful HS2 is when it's finally finished (obviously will be years late) and we see how much tickets cost. Then we can wonder if it was worth the over £100 billion that it'll inevitably have cost by then (it'll run way over the latest predicted costs again). You know how it works, contracts for matey boys and future favours. Going off topic anyway, so I won't mention it again.
Click to expand...
People see projects and the costs and it baffles me tbh. £100 billion whilst a ton of money isn’t loads for a project and rail line that’s going to be open for 100-150 years and the rest. Investing in future generations.

Anyway, NIMBYs were the issue. Could have saved billions by doing cut and cover or trenches through the shires but they complained so we’re tunnelling for miles, costing us billions in the process.
 
Blackrock said:
Onto your second point I think generally it will be costing the taxpayers money if it’s 24/7 and in public ownership. We’ll all be paying for it, I’m not against because like I said I think later trains should be the standard elsewhere anyway. But it will be an additional cost somewhere down the line.
Click to expand...
I think that assuming they run to london, only a few of those 24/7 trains would be empty (probably between 1-7 ish, assuming a 10-10 opening similar to florida on busy days).

If they build a similar area to city walk, it could result in guests leaving arround 12-1 am, as after the park they may go to a resturant, or a bar to wait for the crowds to calm down.

Then you have to add all of the staff who will leave about an hour and a half after due to running out the queue and putting the ride to bed (also the guests who were in that queue)

in addition if guests know that the last train is at 11pm, and the park closes at 10pm, it may encourage people to just drive/take a taxi as they won't want to risk missing the last train, but if they know there are trains 24/7 it can calm the anxiety of having to ensure you are on the train potentialy increasing train users.

The crowd pattern will be intresting, but will probably be very high arivals a bit before and after opening and then low untill it getting medium/high leaving bussyness between at the end of the day for a few hours starting an hour or 2 before it closes and ending after it closed (that is what it is aproximatley like at AT/TP). Now consider that if a park has 20,000 people and 50% catch the train (10,000) if a train has a 1,000 people capacity it will require 10 trains at the start and 10 at the end of the day to come within those couple of hours hours, but the rest of the time it could be hourly/half an hour trains depending on crowds
 
Bert2theSpark said:
The article does actually humanises the NIMBY argument quite well, it hones in on a disabled woman who lives across from the site and is rightfully concerned about the impact of increased traffic congestion with the new theme park. She has spinal injuries and is very much car-dependent and struggling at the moment. The article articulates that infrastructure construction should come before the park opens and should be more than adequate in order to do the existing locals a strong sense of moral justice.
Click to expand...

Majority of the arguments I've heard against Universal are to do with traffic increasing for locals. Not only is it understandable, I think it's completely justified as well. I know it's been said before that Universal want a large amount of its visitors to arrive by train, but the roads need to be upgraded too, and I'm hoping it can work out for everyone
 
I still think there will be a decision by the end of the year. Personally I think it will be the end of October but who knows.

I don't think either party wants this dragging on to 2025
 
Relife said:
I still think there will be a decision by the end of the year. Personally I think it will be the end of October but who knows.

I don't think either party wants this dragging on to 2025
Click to expand...
I’m personally of the belief that no party is incentivised to do this quickly. Whilst a quick, smooth process would be amazing for all involved - it’s far more important for all sides to get this through as close to their own terms as possible.

It’s not like we’re in an environment with temporary preferential conditions. The authorities and Universal will both be drawn to brinksmanship to get the best possible deal for themselves.

Balancing the above, though. My personal belief is that the park WILL see the light of day, and the Universal juggernaut will rattle through the infrastructure development and park build process like no one’s business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top