Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FGW Link excels even Thames Strains at public safety (lack of ...) | London Transport | |||
Croxley Link progress | London Transport | |||
Croxley Link progress | London Transport | |||
Croxley Link progress | London Transport | |||
Croxley Link progress | London Transport |