On 08/02/2019 17:52, Bevan Price wrote:
On 08/02/2019 15:08, Robin wrote:
On 08/02/2019 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
On 08/02/19 4:14, Recliner wrote:
The DfT remains consistent in its dislike of OHLE

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/battery-powered-trams-to-beat-congestion-pzz3p9jk3?shareToken=d7efc8230f20d995b8ea4bff5daae 175




As usual, the incompetent DfT only thinks about short term costs of
initial construction, not the long term running / operating costs.

Batteries have a finite life. You can recharge them, but they
eventually deteriorate, hold less charge, and have to be replaced -
and they are not cheap to replace.

Moreover, you use additional energy to convey the weight of the
batteries on every journey, instead of getting energy from fixed
overhead wires to move a vehicle that is lighter due to the absence
of batteries.

And before anyone suggests fuel cells, they also have finite lives,
and to function, they often rely on the presence of rare, expensive,
precious metals (platinum, palladium, rhodium, etc.)


All of those factors would be included in the appraisal of costs and
benefits of competing options - bus, battery tram, OHLE etc - over the
the life of the project.

You would think that they ought to do that, but on past history, does
anyone here trust the civil service to get anything right ????


It may surprise you to know that Ministers can and do take decisions
against the advice of their civil servants. And that the influence of
the Civil Service declined from the 1970s. An awful lot of decisions
are made by Ministers with their special advisers and external interests.

And investment appraisals aren't secret. It's open to anyone to
challenge them and/or offer their own. The methodology is simple enough
- and published in the Treasury's "Green Book".

In any event, I'm unclear how civil servants are to blame for things
such as the Leeds Supertram (cancelled when costs were heading for
double the planned budget - and that before any serious construction
work). That inability on the part of promoters to estimate accurately
the cost and timetable of major infrastructure schemes seems to live on
with Cross rail - and isn't likely to help the "be big, be bold, it's
worth the extra investment" school.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid