Display:
I don't get any sense of how they will solve some major problems, such as the entire trackbed north of Nottingham for many miles has been entirely destroyed. That entire area is heavily developed and I would like to see some statements or a feasibility study on where they're gonna put a replacement railway from Leicester on north.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 12:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The detailed route used to be on the site. They spent a LOT of money with people like Parsons on coming up with that detailed scheme, and they weren't trurned down because it couldn't be built.

It was the usual Treasury crap that also got most of the tram schemes (MerseyTram, Leeds SuperTram) binned.

I guess they would have to update the study in the light of the last couple of years' development (but don't forget development doesn't happen overnight, so I should think their plans are still valid)

They only used the GCR route where that was still feasible: it certainly wasn't going through Nottingham Victoria....

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 01:30:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Chris: Why was the Leeds Tram scheme binned?
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 02:57:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Treasury - which was stumping up a large chunk of the money - required cast iron guarantees from the local council that it wouldn't go over budget.

They changed the goalposts as they went along as well: the whole thing   was a total fiasco. They kept stringing it - demanding more info etc etc - along and then - because of the time passing - upped their demands on the council because of increased construction costs.

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 03:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So basically they want to bring the transport situation to complete implosion.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 04:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it's because cars are good and everything else is bad.

Roads are treated as investment. Rail is treated as expenditure. The rules which are used to calculate the value - or not - of spending are completely different, and the rigidity with which they're enforced is also completely different.

On top of it all you have enforced public-private partnerships and franchises which have wasted billions.

The rail franchise companies are smart and know how the game works. Because rail is supposed to be profitable, you promise the Treasury that you will make huge and juicy repayments by the end of your run, in return for a subsidy at the start.

Then when adverse conditions make your huge and juicy repayments impossible - completely unexpectedly, of course - you declare bankruptcy and walk away.

There have been two high profile collapses - GNER and Metronet - which have done exactly this. Sea Containers which ran GNER was always financially marginal, but anyone with a brain could have realised that the original GNER franchise deal was insane. Likewise with Metronet.

NEG has now 'negotiated' a deal for the GNER's former East Coast line franchise which requires even higher payments to the Treasury than the GNER deal did.

The wankers at the Treasury either don't realise they're being played - watch what happens when NEG suddenly isn't able to make those payments a few years from now - or are fully complicit and corrupt.

My guess is there's a whole lot of the latter going on than anyone wants to admit.

The end result is that passenger care ends up at the bottom of the list. This supposedly privatised railway is costing the UK are more in real terms than it did when it was publicly owned, and offers much lower performance. Engineering and management experience has also been fragmented.

Roads, meanwhile, have continued along more or less the same lines as they have since Beeching's day, with contractors doing very nicely out of building for the short term and then having to make renewals on a rolling basis.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 04:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All this is true and I even knew it before.

But there has been 2 (that's 2) new roads in the Leeds area over the last 10 years. One is the M1/A1 link, which isn't anything to do with the city centre mostly, more about linking Scotland and London more easily.

The other is 2.7km of ring road extension.

Now I'll happily admit that's more investment than some areas have got (including where I live.)

But as someone who has to go into Leeds quite regularly for work I can say that volume of people going in and out every day is only increasing and there appears no plan at all to handle that, not even a corrupt road based plan.

And don't get me started on the GNER and NEG fiascos, that's the rail line I have to use... ;-)

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 05:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's because you're near Leeds. Which is North somewhere. Of course there's not going to be any money spent up there, because no one who matters ever goes there.

Most of the money seems to have gone on motorway renewals in the south of the UK - with plenty of medium scale widening/improving/reworking schemes of relatively minor utility but high profitability - e.g. putting a bridge over one of the junctions on an A4 feeder road near Swindon, which must have shaved as much as a minute off journey times.

It's true we've stopped building motorways, but I suspect that's partly because even the civil servants finally realised that massed public protests were bad for business, and expensive too.

E.g. The A303 London/Exeter road could easily be motorwayed. I'm sure the funding would magically appear if a plan could be agreed, but politically it's not worth the aggro.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 05:44:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the UK's Cars good Trains bad attitude goes back of the 70's and 80's and the fight against the unions, At the time the car industry was the biggest employer in the UK. If your car workers went on strike it didn't really hurt anyone apart from the car workers (and a few associated industries) if your railway workers went on strike, the whole country could grind to a halt relatively quickly. to keep employment high the theory was to push a car based lifestyle.

If this is right then once again we are looking at messing ourselves up by trying to deal with the percieved economic problems of thirty years ago, now.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 05:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It was the whole Thatcher Individualism thing: I seem to recall a proud boast that she hadn't been on a train throughout her term in office...

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 06:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And yet they still turn down my plan to turn the milenium dome into the Margret Thatcher Mausoleum and memorial dancehall, so we can all dance on her grave.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 06:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You didn't mention the biggest licence to print money in the whole Mare's Nest: the ROSCO's....

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 06:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series