Fast Train To London

[COYW]

We need to get better at our delivery of large scale capital projects, much better.

 

We didn't do to badly with the Olympic Park and that was a gigantic project.

[Traf]

We didn't do to badly with the Olympic Park and that was a gigantic project.

 

How far under budget did that one come in at?

[COYW]

Projects of that size are never going to be under budget. The fact that they managed to co-ordinate a whole load of different unions and transform a derelict, contaminated, industrial wasteland into a whole new postal district, in around 6 years after winning the bid, was an incredible feat. The budget will be more than recouped by the money the park generates in the future. It certainly wasn't generating much income in it's previous incarnation.

[freds dad]

Will it stop at Leigh?

 

Yes as well as Kearsley and Moses Gate

[Exiled Girl]

We didn't do to badly with the Olympic Park and that was a gigantic project.

However, they split the risk by running it as individual projects - nonetheless, your point stands. T5 Heathrow came in on time and on budget - the problems when it opened were operational ones, not constructional.

[no balls]

Yes as well as Kearsley and Moses Gate

and every other one at Clifton

[SatanGreavsie]

 

However by the time it is built in 20 -30 years time there is a danger that the advance of IT technologies will have made face to face meetings redundant.

 

Egg-fucking-zackaly

They're not far off being redundant now, but if you think what is to come on that timescale....

I mean Japan in their WC 2022 bid gave us a glimpse of what is possible. By the time this fucker is built nobody will be travelling anywhere.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-05/world-cup-bid-japan-offers-project-live-3-d-holographic-games-pitches-worldwide

[COYW]

Then again, we were led to believe that the advent of computer technology, email, etc, would make working in an office, a thing of the past.

[jayjayoghani]

with regard to HS2 not taking account of technological advances, someone posted this on a linkedin group I'm in

 

What I want to know is if the HS2 business and revenue models have taken any account whatsoever of the arrival of fully automated (self-driving, autonomous, driverless) vehicles in the near future? With Google explicitly stating that they aspire to have NHTSA Level 4 automated vehicle technology, capable of unmanned driving, in public hands by 2017, then this could have a very significant impact on surface transportation. HS2 will definitely be impacted to some degree - personally I consider that it would be a very significant impact based on my knowledge and thoughts on how the business models might evolve.

It should be noted that the Google Level 4 automated vehicle technology can operate on the existing road infrastructure and that they will be paid for the by the private sector. They will be able to provide a door-to-door service and with the inevitable and rapid evolution of fleets of these automated shared mobility vehicles there is expected to be a noticeable increase in average vehicle occupancy which will assist in congestion mitigation and journey time reliability on the roads. Research has shown that one Level 4 automated vehicle can replace anywhere between 2.5 and 14 manually driven vehicles. The Earth Institute, Columbia University research shows that the average person can expect their annual transportation costs to reduce by 40% if they relinquish private vehicle ownership and hire vehicles as needed from the automated 'taxi' fleets.

It is therefore plausible that many trips that HS2 is intended to capture e.g. requiring 30 mins travel to the London Station and 30 mins additional travel at Manchester would be more convenient by a door-to-door automated taxi. In which you could work, or be connected, for the entire journey - and will probably be cheaper as well.

Given the mounting evidence that automated vehicles could transform the surface transportation landscape, and announcements from Google saying we will have them by 2017, and automakers like Nissan and Volvo indicating 2020, then the impacts of this technology are likely to be felt long before HS2 is in operation (HS2 construction starts in 2017).

 

Edited September 7, 2013 by jayjayoghani

[SatanGreavsie]

Then again, we were led to believe that the advent of computer technology, email, etc, would make working in an office, a thing of the past.

Aye, but the point here is that the argument is that saving 30 mins or whatever will make all the difference.  Of course if there are massive projects to be discussed and millions hinge on the result then people will get together. But, for the most part, those kinds of decisions are unlikely to hinge on half an hours journey time, surely.

[Youri McAnespie]

When I've got an important meeting in that London the last thing I want to do is cut down on my drinking time beforehand.

[maaarsh]

The point of HS2 isn't to enable you lot to get to London, but is to increase the number of international flights into Manchester & Birmingham, so people can then get on a fast train into London, thereby decreasing the number of flights into Heathrow and making things quieter for the people in the Tory constituencies under the flightpath (Richmond, Wimbledon, Fulham, Putney etc.). However, as anyone who knows business people will know, they will not fly into Birmingham or Manchester, they want to be in London so fly into London. Ffs, they won't even fly into Gatwick instead of Heathrow.

 

It's a waste of money, and pointless.

I think it's a total waste of money, but this interpretation of why it's happening is fucking bizzare, given how the route goes right through lots of nice Tory Consituencies and is pissing them off no end, and I really struggle to believe anyone is stupid enough to think someone would fly to Manchester when they want to go to London.

[leigh white]

So its only taking one hour to get from Manchester to Euston, why not get the train an hour earlier and get to Euston at the same time ?

[DazBob]

Fuck that.  By the time it's built I'll be travelling everywhere on my hover-board.

[Traf]

We didn't do to badly with the Olympic Park and that was a gigantic project.

 

 

How far under budget did that one come in at?

 

50 hours and I'm still waiting.

[Whites man]

A complete waste of money.

 

Busted advise that by the year 3000 we will be living under water so I do not think HS2 will be operational long enough to be worthwhile.

[Traf]

A complete waste of money.

 

Busted advise that by the year 3000 we will be living under water so I do not think HS2 will be operational long enough to be worthwhile.

 

 

Busted?

 

Is that what you went to school for?

[heywoodwhite]

At first I was all for this.  I am generally a firm beliver in spending money on frastructure in order to improve the country's commercial and financial standing.

 

However I am now drifting away. 

 

Currently it is 2 hrs 8 mins to London from Manchester.  I think that it is pretty good and could probably be cut a little more with a much smaller investment.  The main issue though should be to addresss the regional infrastructure.  Last time i came back from London it took over an hour to get back to Heywood. Admittedly this was due to a replacement bus for the tram and then delays (oh and I was pissed as a fart).

 

I reckon they should spend the money on increasing both the size of the trains and associated paltforms, increase the frequency of the trains with better signalling, ensuring it is easier and cheaper for business people to work on the train and also to improve all the regional connections (I believe some of this is already happening).

[Youri McAnespie]

Dig a big canal, that won't need specialist construction techniques, they used to put the out of work to work clearing the canals in the 80s...

 

Water flows downhill so that's half the work already done.

 

Raise Donald Campbell's Thunderbird boat from the depths of Loch Ness and refurbish it. Attach 'carriages' to the Bluebeard 'Engine' - these could fashioned/salvaged from the retired Blackpool Pleasure Beach Log Flume ride.

 

And there we'd have an high-speed alternate link within a couple of years.

 

Attach the canal to the Thames and the link could extend to the Continent eventually.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Youri McAnespie

[Traf]

Dig a big canal, that won't need specialist construction techniques, they used to put the out of work to work clearing the canals in the 80s...

 

Water flows downhill so that's half the work already done.

 

Raise Donald Campbell's Thunderbird boat from the depths of Loch Ness and refurbish it. Attach 'carriages' to the Bluebeard 'Engine' - these could fashioned/salvaged from the retired Blackpool Pleasure Beach Log Flume ride.

 

And there we'd have an high-speed alternate link within a couple of years.

 

Attach the canal to the Thames and the link could extend to the Continent eventually.

 

I'll give you £250,00 for 25% of the company.

[Youri McAnespie]

Done!

[Sweep]

50 hours and I'm still waiting.

 

I was mildly interested so had a bit of a look

 

The London Olympics is set to come in under its £9.3bn budget with £476m of the contingency funding left, according to new government figures.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt said it was "fantastic news" that the Games would be on time and under budget.

Ministers expect to be able to return the remaining money to the Treasury.

The £9.3bn budget, which included a £2bn contingency, was set in 2007 and was almost four times the estimated cost at the time London bid in 2005.

The budget was revised upwards after taking into account previously overlooked costs such as VAT, increased security costs, and an expanded brief for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to regenerate the lower Lea Valley area.

 

 

So it was a massive £476M under budget............if you ignore the fact that the budget had gone up by a factor of 4 from the original estimated cost

[Traf]

Done!

 

 

I'll get some funds re-routed from my Nigerian account.

Just send me your details.

[tomski]

At first I was all for this. I am generally a firm beliver in spending money on frastructure in order to improve the country's commercial and financial standing.

 

However I am now drifting away.

 

Currently it is 2 hrs 8 mins to London from Manchester. I think that it is pretty good and could probably be cut a little more with a much smaller investment. The main issue though should be to addresss the regional infrastructure. Last time i came back from London it took over an hour to get back to Heywood. Admittedly this was due to a replacement bus for the tram and then delays (oh and I was pissed as a fart).

 

I reckon they should spend the money on increasing both the size of the trains and associated paltforms, increase the frequency of the trains with better signalling, ensuring it is easier and cheaper for business people to work on the train and also to improve all the regional connections (I believe some of this is already happening).

If they were to spend the money on local transport that would be great, especially the roads. Went home from Wigan the other night and for 11 miles or whatever the journey is, its ridiculous. I sadly can't see it ever being justified.

[Traf]

I was mildly interested so had a bit of a look

 

 

So it was a massive £476M under budget............if you ignore the fact that the budget had gone up by a factor of 4 from the original estimated cost

 

 

So, it's like buying a Twix for 95p instead of a £1, despite the original estimate for the Twix being 95p?