Paul Corfield wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 05:42:13 -0700, "Mizter T" wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Sky Rider) wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
[crossposted to uk.transport.london and uk.railway]
The Thameslink project now has all the legal powers to start
construction - it just needs someone to agree to pay for it!
According to the BBC a DfT spokesman said that a funding decision
would be made by *next summer*. It's all well and good having the
legal authority to do the work (although I must admit this is a
major step forward, and there will be no need for any further
public enquiries and the like, thank God), but I wouldn't hold my
breath.
They did say "at the latest". There is a suspicion that it will be
announced with the SOFA.
Well, that's where I always look when I'm short of cash.
You can't read Uncle Roger or else you would know the acronym stands for
"Statement of Funds Available" (from the government).
We don't all read "Uncle Roger" here you know - last time I checked the
utl charter it wasn't a requirement to read rail-interest magazines
before posting!
For all the ignorant souls such as I can you say when the Statement of
Funds Available is normally, er, stated?
It is a new requirement that flows from the legislative disaster area
that the government has foisted on itself via the latest Railways Act.
The govt have to provide the HLOS and the SOFA and then ORR have to
decide if SOFA can deliver the HLOS and if not decide that either a
smaller HLOS is needed or a bigger SOFA!
HLOS - high level output statement (for the rail network). What govt
wants to "buy".
SOFA - statement of funds available. how much is in the piggy bank that
Uncle Gordon has given the baby Alexander.
ORR - Office of Rail Regulation. The new fall guys for railway cuts -
lovingly placed in the firing line by the civil servant loonies at DfT
Rail.
Thanks Paul.
Presumably the SOFA the government is willing to provide will never be
big enough to accomodate the HLOS - but I guess by the contorted logic
that's at work here it that disconnect becomes the fault of an
independent body which is expected to deliver the undeliverable, and
will get lambasted when they continue to insist 2+2=4. Hmm, great.