London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 30th 13, 03:42 PM
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2011
Location: Leyton, East London
Posts: 865
Default Thames Link Progress - Or Lack Of It

Yesterday there were news reports of a Parliamentary Committee with an
interest in public transport expressing dissatisfaction with the speed of progress
on the Thames Link project. Network rail had apparently tried to assure the
Committee that everything was fine The Committee particularly questioned
whether the project would be completed by 2018.

I was under the impression that the Thames Link project was almost complete:
platforms have been lengthened and the new viaduct at Borough is in place.
What remains to be done? Why does it require another five years? Five years is
a long time

  #2   Report Post  
Old October 30th 13, 08:41 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,008
Default Thames Link Progress - Or Lack Of It

Robin9 wrote:
Yesterday there were news reports of a Parliamentary Committee with an
interest in public transport expressing dissatisfaction with the speed
of progress
on the Thames Link project. Network rail had apparently tried to assure
the
Committee that everything was fine The Committee particularly questioned

whether the project would be completed by 2018.

I was under the impression that the Thames Link project was almost
complete:
platforms have been lengthened and the new viaduct at Borough is in
place.
What remains to be done? Why does it require another five years? Five
years is
a long time


Two words: London Bridge.
  #3   Report Post  
Old October 30th 13, 08:59 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2012
Posts: 79
Default Thames Link Progress - Or Lack Of It



"Recliner" wrote in message
...

Robin9 wrote:

What remains to be done? Why does it require another five years? Five
years is a long time


Two words: London Bridge.


and the Bermondsey diveunder.
And build rolling stock, new signalling through the centre to support 24 tph
Connection to the Great Northern

Peter

  #4   Report Post  
Old October 31st 13, 11:43 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,008
Default Thames Link Progress - Or Lack Of It

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:59:44 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...

Robin9 wrote:

What remains to be done? Why does it require another five years? Five
years is a long time


Two words: London Bridge.


and the Bermondsey diveunder.
And build rolling stock, new signalling through the centre to support 24 tph
Connection to the Great Northern


It's not building the rolling stock that takes an unduly long time,
but concluding the order. The short list was announced in July 2008
but it took three years to select Siemens as the preferred bidder, and
another two years for the financial close to be reached. Of course,
the deal was controversial as the trains won't be built in Britain,
but because of the delays, lots of interim trains have been ordered
from Bombardier without any high profile tenders. The Siemens trains
will start to be delivered in 2016, so it'll have taken much less time
to build them than to order them.
  #5   Report Post  
Old October 31st 13, 06:14 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,518
Default Thames Link Progress - Or Lack Of It

In message , at 13:23:14 on
Thu, 31 Oct 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:
The PAC report acknowledges that the first stage of Thameslink was
delivered on time and under budget which seems a reasonable performance
to me.


Which timetable though? In 1996 they said construction would start in
2001 and be finished by 2006. Railtrack was still promoting the 2006
date in 2000.

The end of the WAGN franchise was even delayed to 31 March 2006, to
synchronise it with the new service pattern (and the merger of the GN
and Bedpan services). Oops.
--
Roland Perry


  #6   Report Post  
Old October 31st 13, 06:38 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: May 2005
Posts: 6,077
Default Thames Link Progress - Or Lack Of It


On 31/10/2013 19:14, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 13:23:14 on
Thu, 31 Oct 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:
The PAC report acknowledges that the first stage of Thameslink was
delivered on time and under budget which seems a reasonable
performance to me.


Which timetable though? In 1996 they said construction would start in
2001 and be finished by 2006. Railtrack was still promoting the 2006
date in 2000.

The end of the WAGN franchise was even delayed to 31 March 2006, to
synchronise it with the new service pattern (and the merger of the GN
and Bedpan services). Oops.


The project timetable as per the current project - i.e. the one that the
previous government gave the go-ahead for in 2007.

Previous project timetables were aspirational only - they were all
reliant on the government saying yes, which it didn't actually do until
six years ago.
  #7   Report Post  
Old October 31st 13, 07:04 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,518
Default Thames Link Progress - Or Lack Of It

In message , at 19:38:20 on Thu, 31 Oct
2013, Mizter T remarked:
The PAC report acknowledges that the first stage of Thameslink was
delivered on time and under budget which seems a reasonable
performance to me.


Which timetable though? In 1996 they said construction would start in
2001 and be finished by 2006. Railtrack was still promoting the 2006
date in 2000.

The end of the WAGN franchise was even delayed to 31 March 2006, to
synchronise it with the new service pattern (and the merger of the GN
and Bedpan services). Oops.


The project timetable as per the current project - i.e. the one that
the previous government gave the go-ahead for in 2007.


Riiight - so any project can be on-time as long as you ignore all the
delays and keep on re-writing the timetable.

Previous project timetables were aspirational only


A fascinating comment given the "aspirations" in the news today (for HS2
and other future rail projects).

I suppose the 24tph is "aspirational only" as well?

- they were all reliant on the government saying yes, which it didn't
actually do until six years ago.


Like announcing funding three times, it seems we can now announce
go-aheads multiple times.
--
Roland Perry


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FGW Link excels even Thames Strains at public safety (lack of ...) S.Byers London Transport 28 December 3rd 04 04:50 PM
Croxley Link progress Dave Arquati London Transport 10 May 23rd 04 12:43 PM
Croxley Link progress Stephen Furley London Transport 8 May 18th 04 11:34 PM
Croxley Link progress Solar Penguin London Transport 4 May 15th 04 07:38 PM
Croxley Link progress Dave Arquati London Transport 7 May 15th 04 12:56 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017