please empty your brain below
|
|
£15m for an additional train? Not surprising the line is unaffordable- with a BCR of 0.4:1 amazed it got this far. Rail industry costs are out of control compared to standard building costs - no idea how you address this problem
John | 02.11.17 - 7:14 a.m. | #
|
Industry-wide, costs are around £1-1.5M per carriage for something modern. Considering this would be firing up a production line for a one-off, it's about in line with what you'd expect (namely, double the normal cost).
dg writes: The extra train wasn't a true one-off, it was built as part of the S Stock delivery.
They're already cancelling the additional trains for the Northern and Jubilee (see London Reconnections), partly due to the extreme costs of a short run of trains.
Chz | 02.11.17 - 7:19 a.m. | #
|
|
Well it will be interesting to see what happens with their bid to the Housing Infrastructure Fund. There is a lot of money in that fund although it may not have been TfL's top priority when deciding what to bid for. We shall have to wait and see.
ganching | Homepage | 02.11.17 - 7:46 a.m. | #
|
|
So essentially Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, has countermanded Boris's direction for TfL to be responsible for costs over £284.4m. All too predictable, as this is outside London.
Andrew | 02.11.17 - 8:09 a.m. | #
|
|
Its in the Tory Commuter belt if they want it delivered let the Treasury shake that Magic Money Tree and pony up an additional £250M to ensure its delivered on time as planned.
Andrew Jarman | Homepage | 02.11.17 - 8:23 a.m. | #
|
|
One day we will have the courage and vision to link bits of Watford with other bits of Watford.
John Styles | 02.11.17 - 9:02 a.m. | #
|
One day we will figure out why slightly less than 2 miles of track on a pre-existing alignment costs £300m !!
Worth pointing out that the 35 miles of Borders Railway reopening, from Edinburgh to Tweedbank, for a similar price, and that involved more difficult civil engineering as the trackbed had been built on in places.
Jimbo | 02.11.17 - 9:12 a.m. | #
|
How much has all of the work done so far cost?
dg writes: See paragraph 4.2
Matthew | 02.11.17 - 9:12 a.m. | #
|
So much of this problem is caused by all the benefits really being outside of Greater London. So the solution of course is simply to move Watford into Greater London.
Of course some of the residents will scream to high heaven about that, but hey, it's London that owns the tube.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 02.11.17 - 9:17 a.m. | #
|
Do we really need to spend £300m or more to connect Croxley to Watford by tube? About 3 miles? Can it really be £100m per mile?
The bus from Croxley to Watford Junction currently takes about 15 minutes. The Tory commuters can drive it in about 10 minutes. I bet DG can walk it in less than a hour.
dg writes: When I lived in Croxley, I could have walked to Watford in under an hour, but I usually took the bus. The buses were much more frequent then.
Andrew | 02.11.17 - 9:18 a.m. | #
|
Oh and given trains feature all manor of important safety systems and features, expensive electronics for signalling, and a lot more, of course its going to cost in the millions.
Equally they're designed to carry several hundred people, and will last over 40 years in service.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 02.11.17 - 9:20 a.m. | #
|
Headline: Freeze fares.
Reality: Funding dries up for improvements, extensions and growth.
Thanks for nothing, Sadiq.
Jordan D | 02.11.17 - 9:35 a.m. | #
|
|
I was always against the fare freeze. It seemed very much the wrong thing to do at the wrong time.
Kirk | 02.11.17 - 9:38 a.m. | #
|
Jordan D - of course even if the fare freeze hadn't happened, there are bound to be schemes within Greater London with a higher cost benefit return...
If I was Sadiq Kahn and I had a magic money tree, I wouldn't be prioritising projects that mostly benefit the residents of Hertfordshire, above the ones that benefit the people who actually can vote for me.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 02.11.17 - 9:40 a.m. | #
|
@ John - the original business case, which is online, was rather better than 0.4:1 which is why it proceeded and received funding. I suspect the £15m quoted for the train is a combination of capital cost and whole life maintenance and upgrade too. This would be relevant to the overall case for the project but clearly not for cash spend to date.
The real problems here are
1. A badly scoped and costed project.
2. A poor last minute "I'm not going to be Mayor" financial decision by Boris to lumber TfL with an open cheque.
3. No real advocacy or "push" for the project from anyone other than Watford's MP. I've never come across any local lobbying from Watford, Croxley or Northwood / Harrow residents who might directly benefit from the service. There seems to be a great deal of indifference about it. The only people who are exercised about it are transport enthusiasts on blogs and forums.
Unless Mr P Hammond pulls a "financial rabbit out of a hat" in the forthcoming Budget then it's dead. If he doesn't then I can't wait to see the reaction for Mr Harrington, MP for Watford and the bile that will be poured on the Mayor's head.
PC | 02.11.17 - 9:55 a.m. | #
|
|
Fares freeze or no fares freeze, it would take a bold politician to authorise a scheme with a BCR of 0.4:1...
straphan | 02.11.17 - 10:09 a.m. | #
|
|
I have the draft environmental statement for this scheme in 1996. The cost of the entire project was given as £15m. Ok, some of the increase is for an uprated electrical supply and an additional train, but I fail to understand how have escalated almost twentyfold in 21 years...
Abe | 02.11.17 - 10:12 a.m. | #
|
Move along!
Nothing to see here!
Frank F | 02.11.17 - 12:05 p.m. | #
|
@Abe
Two things. One, the 1996 scheme was provisioned with A Stock to provide the service so any cost related to S8 (e.g. train, track and signal equipment) would not be around. Two, the newer schemes feature one more totally new station instead of reusing two old ones if I didn't remember it wrongly.
Patrickov | 02.11.17 - 12:29 p.m. | #
|
A great shame. The only gainers will be the fairly small number of people who live near Watford Met station and have organised their lives round it.
In some ways the waste of money can be put down to our version of democracy, which seems to require periodic lurches of policy from one extreme to the other.
Malcolm | 02.11.17 - 12:46 p.m. | #
|
|
Of course the BCR is poor, but no-one seems to be challenging why the costs of the project are so high. This is a relatively straightforward construction project mainly on an existing alignment. Yes, there's a viaduct but so what ? (@PC) I don't understand how the project could be "poorly scoped" - the scope of works seems pretty clear, and I think local support for a project that improves access to the area's major A&E Hospital, is more widespread than you imagine - the link to WFJ opens up access from a wide hinterland ....
Paul | 02.11.17 - 1:15 p.m. | #
|
|
By comparison, I understand HS2 will cost about £400m per mile, so this would have been as cheap as chips.
Andrew | 02.11.17 - 4:17 p.m. | #
|
|
@Andrew - Even if HS2 does cost £400m per mile, that is a brand new formation, lots of long tunnels, 200+ mph, major station upgrades and very big trains. HS2 still makes MLX look like poor value for money!!
Jimbo | 02.11.17 - 5:18 p.m. | #
|
The Country is ruled by finance. How many highly paid financial experts were employed to write the report?
The costs are excessive and could be reduced but no engineers or planners, apparently, were paid to look at ways of reducing the cost.
- Single track sections? (DLR single track sections Bow Church to Stratford).
- Reducing performance specification? (Some peak hour trains terminate at Moor Park)
Unfortunately no one is driving the project forward.
RogerB | 06.11.17 - 3:03 p.m. | #
|
RogerB - Funnily enough TfL have recently spent a LOT of money on the tram network trying to reduce the problems caused by single tracking. They double tracked much (all?) of the section you mention on the DLR. They've also double tracked a huge amount of the tram network.
On the trams the single track sections between Croydon and Wimbledon were causing significant problems with meeting demand. Problems that could have been solved much sooner had someone not tried to cut corners at the beginning. And all fixed at a far greater cost than what it would have been if they'd done it from day 1.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 06.11.17 - 3:11 p.m. | #
|
Andrew, are you saying it's better to have nothing at all than a sub-standard option - given that we can't afford the gold standard?
You may be right but I feel the options should have been evaluated.
Presumably upgrading the Tram passed the CBA because traffic exceeded expectations. The same might happen here.
On the DLR I think they've extended the double track at Pudding Mill Lane with the station re-build but it's still single between Bow Church & PML and PML and Stratford and it seems to manage an 8 minute service. Perhaps DG can confirm.
RogerB | 06.11.17 - 8:56 p.m. | #
|
It's a 5 minute service, 4 minutes in rush hour. Sounds excellent, but when there are delays and the trains get out of sync it all goes very wrong (indeed I missed getting to the cinema today for that very reason, so don't talk to me about the optimal nature of single tracking).
I am not impressed by your 'plans' to dumb down the Met line extension.
[sorry, but you shouldn't have asked :) ]
diamond geezer | Homepage | 06.11.17 - 9:02 p.m. | #
|
|
So you'd rather it provided a reliable service just up to Bow Church?
RogerB | 06.11.17 - 9:29 p.m. | #
|
|
That's not what I said, or would ever suggest, that's one of those ridiculous "So you'd rather..." questions.
diamond geezer | Homepage | 06.11.17 - 9:33 p.m. | #
|
I would wholeheartedly challenge the notion that "we" can't afford the extension.
We can. If by we, we mean the nation.
Oh the austerity, small government fans will tell you otherwise, but it's amazing what we can actually afford.
What's going on here is that TfL and the Mayor of London won't stump up a blank cheque to pay for the extra. Given the limited benefits to the Greater London population who elect the Mayor and for whom TfL exist to serve, I totally understand that stance.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 06.11.17 - 10:24 p.m. | #
|
It might be preferable to have a 'dumbed down' Met extension than not to have it at all.
I suspect The Bow Church to Stratford line would not have been built if it had had to be double track.
RogerB | 06.11.17 - 11:13 p.m. | #
|
The Met line extension has already been scaled down in terms of what was originally planned. The two new stations will essentially be DLR-style halts to save money. Meanwhile the old trackbed has already been cleared ready for double track working - your suggested economies would be spurious.
The DLR rising out of Bow Church station had to be single track because there isn't room for anything else, not because economies were made at the beginning. It's not a comparable example.
diamond geezer | Homepage | 06.11.17 - 11:35 p.m. | #
|
At the very least the cost and benefits of providing a single track viaduct should be evaluated.
RogerB | 07.11.17 - 12:28 p.m. | #
|
You seem to be assuming it hasn't already.
Given TfL already have a lot of experience in dealing with the problems caused by replacing single tracking, I'm sure they could give you a detailed analysis of the costs and the benefits. Perhaps you should put in a Freedom of Information request and actually find out what they have done rather than assuming.
And when done, why not pop up to Scotland to see the impact that cost cutting had on the Borders railway where they did decide to single track. That line has a mere 30 minute frequency (in each direction)
https://www.sundaypost.com/railways-borders...
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 07.11.17 - 12:57 p.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|