|
|
Post by ianvisits on Sept 17, 2008 12:08:58 GMT
The ever reliable (sic) Private Eye had the following in this weeks issue:
-------
Why no word on the £16bn Crossrail project since it was given the go-ahead (yet again) by Gordon Brown in his pre-non-election announcements last Autumn?
The reason is simple. Despite the bill being passed during the summer, there are strong signs the treasury is reluctant to sign off the project. (Remember: the last version of Crossrail was killed off just as they recession of the early 1990s set in).
In secret, therefore, the Crossrail team - which has so far spent a good half-billion before a single sod has been turned - has drawn up a mini version of the scheme as a contingency. Instead of a full-sized tunnel between Liverpool Street and Paddington, there would be a tube sized tunnel which would be far cheaper but, obviously, accommodate far fewer people.
Douglas Oakervee, the abrasive head of Crossrail, commissioned a consultant to look at ways of reducing costs through a process called "value engineering". Along with using cheaper materials and the like, the masterful suggestion was made to cram Londoners more tightly into the trains, forgetting that most of the journey would be on the tracks outside including long trips out to Maidenhead and Shenfield when people would expect more comfort. This idea was kept under wraps to avoid upsetting the parliamentary process but is now ready to be presented to ministers if the treasury moves to scrap the scheme.
-------
It was also pointed out in the press this week that the Business Rates funding for Crossrail is not actually ring fenced, and could be diverted to plug the £1 billion+ hole in tube upgrade work which has recently emerged.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Sept 17, 2008 20:31:35 GMT
Classic. See what happens when projects get delayed for so long?
It's hard to see a tube going as far as Maidenhead let alone Reading. I have an alternative idea of how this might be patched together - the mainline guage might be kept but the route cut. I fear that one of the eastern branches will be nixed in order to keep the rest of the project viable: i.e. Abbey Wood - Heathrow/Berks, leaving the Shenfield Metro for another project.
Will Canary Wharf still give new transport infrastructure priority at a time where major companies are collapsing?
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Sept 17, 2008 22:01:45 GMT
It's hard to see a tube going as far as Maidenhead let alone Reading. It's highly doubtful that they'd actually do that - maybe Slough, but it's likeliest to be West Drayton and Heathrow if it's made to be tube trains. The other ends are completely viable for tube lines.but the Shenfield metro gives the scheme most of it's benefits of congestion relief and regeneration, and the docklands branch gives it it's finances. Anyway, it's always been the case that two branches isn't sensible, or viable if you don't want overcrowding not that long after opening. I'd be very happy if the Shenfield branch is ditched, as long as it's put into Chelney. If they hadn't dallied, then the Docklands would be crying out for a second tube line (or maybe even a first, as Chelney and Crossrail were delayed by the JLE, and Chelney yet again by that upstart Crossrail - what if it was the other way round and Crossrail delayed the JLE?) - it was added late, when they thought that they could raise some money off the Docklands businesses, and also head out towards Ebbsfleet (that won't happen - the amount of work needed - decent turnback arrangements for the outside tracks at Abbey Wood, dual electrification of trains or track, etc doesn't justify it). I don't think a tube-gauge Crossrail is anymore a problem than a tube gauge Central line, save Maidenhead, which was always a bit odd for something that would act as a tube line once east of Paddington. |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Sept 18, 2008 20:52:15 GMT
but the Shenfield metro gives the scheme most of it's benefits of congestion relief and regeneration, and the docklands branch gives it it's finances. Exactly. Hence my "fear". The east-west demand is unbalanced and cutbacks (although not based on any concrete evidence) would potentially affect the end that needs it the most! Yes a tube line would work in the east BUT the western end would need a major re-think. One of the issues with the existing plan is how services would be shared between fast and slow lines. This would be much worse if the slow line was occupied solely by tubes only as far as Slough or West Drayton. Unless the line runs in tube all the way, the fast lines would have to accommodate all the other services. On the up side a tube service would allow an increased frequency from 24tph to at least 30tph. Of course still many of these would be turned short at Paddington... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2008 0:57:08 GMT
If CrossRail will be scaled down, they will be better off building Chelsea-Hackney line (which will take some load off Victoria and Central lines).
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Oct 13, 2008 11:07:12 GMT
Go back to the old suggestion of bolting it onto the Hammersmith Branch, then via new tube, then take over the Shenfield Metro services; that would take physical pressure from the northern Circle, and allow it to be integrated into the LUL group of lines instead of NR. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for regional improvements, but its easier if its (mostly) in one administrative area to gain funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 13, 2008 17:26:07 GMT
If CrossRail will be scaled down, they will be better off building Chelsea-Hackney line They've just spend several hundred million pounds and the best part of a decade getting the current plans through parliament. They'd have to do the same again if the plans were changed significantly, especially to an entirely different line. So if Crossrail is scaled back the only real option is to build parts of what they already have permission for. The tunnel portal is too far west for that You'd need to completely reconfigure the tunnel design, and probably lose Royal Oak in the process. You may also be looking at another act of parliament. (also, if you wanted your route fully segregated, there's the question of freight needing to cross the Crossrail lines at Forest Gate Junction to get from Barking to Stratford and thence the NLL) |
|
|
|
Post by singaporesam on Oct 14, 2008 14:47:42 GMT
Actually a the beginning of a recession is just about the best time to start a big infrastructure project . When you tender the Civil contracts, the steel and concrete prices will be falling and unemployment rising, the contractors will be keen for the job , so theoretically you get the best prices. Whats more by the time you get to the point when you need to pay for the bulk of the project the recession is over and the taxes are rolling in. London land prices will soon be at a 10 year low making compulsory purchase cheaper. For sure if they go ahead now, theyĺl get absolutely the best possible price. Simple economics suggests that scrapping it at this point would be the most moronic thing that could be done.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 14, 2008 15:01:54 GMT
Simple economics suggests that scrapping it at this point would be the most moronic thing that could be done. Which is precisely why I have a horrible feeling that this is exactly what will be done. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 14, 2008 16:14:02 GMT
They've just spend several hundred million pounds and the best part of a decade getting the current plans through parliament. They'd have to do the same again if the plans were changed significantly, especially to an entirely different line. So if Crossrail is scaled back the only real option is to build parts of what they already have permission for. I love this - it's like getting yourself pregnant in order to get a man to marry you! If we invest lots of money in planning, then they will have to go through with it, regardless of high costs, low benefits, etc. Simply as due to not wanting to waste the money that's already been spent, you have to go ahead and spend more money. Who's up for spending a couple of billion on plans for South London tube extensions, Chelney, perhaps a couple of other lines and High Speed Rail routes? That way, it would have to be built! A large amount of infrastructure was built in the Great Depression - as economic boosters and unemployment relief. The same should happen this time. |
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 14, 2008 17:03:37 GMT
I think you've missed my point. I meant building something else entirely will be considerably more expensive and take considerably longer than trying to adapt the existing plans. I wasn't saying you have to build it, but in rational economic analysis, the money is already spent whatever happens, and so can be deducted from the future outlay required, which greatly improves its cost-benefit ratio in comparison to other schemes that don't have designs ready to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 15, 2008 0:50:02 GMT
I didn't miss the point - we got a reason to be committed to it, because we already committed too far (if it isn't worth, which I don't fully agree with: there's some huge problems, but they are possible to overcome) to turn back sensibly. We have the big stick hitting us to build it in already paying for the planning. It ends up happening, simply because we decided that planning to build it would be a good idea and that skews the playing field on which schemes should be built, in that this one has had a lot of work and money spent on it anyway, and there's no retrieving that, so the costs of planning can be ruled off, making the whole thing that little bit 'cheaper'.
Chelney must be quite a long way through the planning stages, though not as far (by a long way) as Crossrail. I reckon the people at CLRL, if they were competent at not wasting tax payers money and time, could do the job in 6 months and £100 million, with the Crossrail plans being held out for a little while longer. Then again, we don't pay the staff to do it quickly, and the longer they take, the more cash they get for the same work. Try at least 2 branch consultations that came to the same conclusions (ie that Watford, Aylesbury and Kingston won't happen), and a council coming up with an idea, and it being rejected as it was "too late", despite having had most of the work done and little effort needed to actually do it!
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 15, 2008 7:55:26 GMT
Chelney must be quite a long way through the planning stages, though not as far (by a long way) as Crossrail Have a dig through the hundreds of drawings and documents that accompanied the Crossrail Bill - they have details of how buses will be diverted around each worksite, for god sake. Then remember they're just the tip of the iceberg compared to the underlying design work, physical surveys, political and economic negotiations, etc required to produce them. Crossrail is an enormous operation, and has been for several years. In comparison, Chelney is little more than a line on a map. You may not like it, but they're required to produce the amount of paperwork they have, and I'm not surprised it's taken as long as it has. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 15, 2008 12:29:37 GMT
Why is so much paperwork required now? Presumably nothing like this was made for, say, the New Works Programme?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 0:15:24 GMT
Endless justifications for funding (benefit against cost), health & safety documentation, etc, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 16, 2008 2:32:36 GMT
Most of the public documentation is the Environmental Statement, where they have to say exactly how the construction will effect the local area, discussing noise issues, lorry routes for deliveries, road diversions, alternative arrangements for some facilities they're compulsory purchasing, and so on.
One factor to take into account is the vast size of the project. Electrifying West Drayton to Maidenhead (requiring rebuilding a dozen bridges around Slough), rebuilding half the stations on the route, platform extensions, rebuilding a few miles of Great Western Main Line, four tracking near Abbey Wood, several depots, and that's before you even mention the tunnelling, underground stations, frequent vent shafts etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by singaporesam on Oct 19, 2008 23:45:39 GMT
The reason for all the paper work is the Transport and Works act and it implementing rules. The main bulk of the paper work created comes from an the British interpretation of the following EU directives, 85/337/EC, 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC.
This is basically another example of the UK taking the EU rules to a literal extreme rather than choosing to implement them in the same way everybody else does i.e. pay lip service and carry on how they´ve always done it.
|
|
