East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

edwin_m · 14 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
The issue is that the costs for, say, the design and implementation stage are essentially unknown at the start of the process. It’s pretty much impossible to do a reliable estimate (even to +/-50%) until feasibility is done. For government to commit construction funding at an early stage, when realistically you don’t know what you are committing to in terms of costs or outputs, is not a good use of public funds.

Similarly - and this is an issue affecting several projects right now - is that Government is bound to operate in spending review periods. It can not commit to funding any project beyond the Spending review period except in special circumstances - usually for big landmark projects taking 5 years or more (Crossrail, aircraft carriers, that sort of thing). Even Thameslink was held up by the spending review, just as HS2 is now. And on top of that!right now, we have election uncertainty and Br**it uncertainty which means the government is unwilling to commit anything on anything!

I think that can be addressed by saying you'd provisionally commit the maximum amount of money in say 10 years time that would result in a worthwhile business case. If as the scheme developed the forecast cost came down, then some of the future funding could be released for other purposes. If it went outside those limits (due to higher costs or lower benefits) then the funding would be cancelled and the promoters would have to look for means of improving the scheme to get it back in the queue.

Most rail projects probably qualify as being "big" and "landmark" and need some certainty of long-term funding before promotors commit (their money, usually not central government's) to development. And the presumption that the scheme would continue unless it missed its cost/benefit target or was actively stopped ought to help to take things out of the political arena once the initial decision was made. I said "provisional" and politicians would still have a right to cancel a scheme at any stage, but would have to actively do that and face the political consequences rather than just letting it lapse and leaving everyone in limbo. As to spending reviews, design work on HS2 continues despite it being under review. Once design has started, stopping and restarting will always cost more than letting a scheme continue while its future is under review.

RailUK Forums

The Planner · 14 Nov 2019

Weekender said:
I just feel it’s better to be honest from the start. Even the 4 mile section from Oxford Parkway to Oxford was a year late.

Which was down to issues with lineside neighbours more than any design or construction issues.

70014IronDuke · 14 Nov 2019

edwin_m said:
... And the presumption that the scheme would continue unless it missed its cost/benefit target or was actively stopped ought to help to take things out of the political arena once the initial decision was made. I said "provisional" and politicians would still have a right to cancel a scheme at any stage, but would have to actively do that and face the political consequences rather than just letting it lapse and leaving everyone in limbo. As to spending reviews, design work on HS2 continues despite it being under review. Once design has started, stopping and restarting will always cost more than letting a scheme continue while its future is under review.

Excellent point.

DarloRich · 14 Nov 2019

edwin_m said:
I think that can be addressed by saying you'd provisionally commit the maximum amount of money in say 10 years time that would result in a worthwhile business case. If as the scheme developed the forecast cost came down, then some of the future funding could be released for other purposes. If it went outside those limits (due to higher costs or lower benefits) then the funding would be cancelled and the promoters would have to look for means of improving the scheme to get it back in the queue.

Most rail projects probably qualify as being "big" and "landmark" and need some certainty of long-term funding before promotors commit (their money, usually not central government's) to development. And the presumption that the scheme would continue unless it missed its cost/benefit target or was actively stopped ought to help to take things out of the political arena once the initial decision was made. I said "provisional" and politicians would still have a right to cancel a scheme at any stage, but would have to actively do that and face the political consequences rather than just letting it lapse and leaving everyone in limbo. As to spending reviews, design work on HS2 continues despite it being under review. Once design has started, stopping and restarting will always cost more than letting a scheme continue while its future is under review.

This is naive in the extreme. It is simply a recipe for a complete loss of financial control. Your plan is to, essentially, assign £Xbn to a project on day one and let them crack on.

Why do posters here always seem to want to chuck away tax payers money?

EDIT - This idea would make my life much easier but it just isnt practical

edwin_m · 14 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
This is naive in the extreme. It is simply a recipe for a complete loss of financial control. Your plan is to, essentially, assign £Xbn to a project on day one and let them crack on.

Why do posters here always seem to want to chuck away tax payers money?

EDIT - This idea would make my life much easier but it just isnt practical

I would be very interested to hear of any better solutions that would avoid the stop-go approach while maintaining the financial control.

work-traveller · 14 Nov 2019

The TWAO hasn't been made by the SoS yet - worth noting that the Inspector was over a month late in submitting his report to the DfT, so the declared TWAO granting date of December might not be realised. Whilst NR can exercise rights of permitted development on land which is already owns and has pre-existing powers over, this doesn't necessarily suit the programmed sequence of works. One of the key aspects is access to the OXD route from both the east and west end. Access from the east is restricted by Bletchley Flyover, which will be refurbished or partially rebuilt. To facilitate these works, some OLE lowering was undertaken on the WCML at Easter and this will be completed at Christmas. Then at Easter 2020 we can expect to see significant demolition/civils works to the flyover. For western access to OXD, Charbridge Lane bridge has to be built, which is a sequencing challenge given the requirement to keep the road open throughout - albeit on a variety of temporary alignments during the construction.
This is all aside from the fact that the DfT still hasn't sanctioned full capital funding for this phase - which is not related to the TWAO. Then there is the perennial elephant in the room of HS2 - which project builds which part of the interfacing infrastructure and when. This has ebbed and flowed but now looks to be taking a more definite shape.

L&Y Robert · 14 Nov 2019

Well said! [coppercapped (post 3319)] We should make the purpose of the planning system, and the efforts of those engaged in it better understood by the public at large. People - communities - benefit from the planning system in ways that are not immediately evident, although often it may seem the opposite to individuals or small groups.
L&Y Robert Dip.TP MRTPI (ret)

DelW · 14 Nov 2019

Weekender said:
The east-west website talks of Phase 2 trains running late 2023. We all know that in 3 years time they will announce a 2 to 3 year delay.

petersi said:
My guess no trains before 2025 at the earliest before any construction or commissioning delays.

I haven't seen it quoted above, but in September's Railway Magazine, the "20 years ago" section in From the Archives contained this gem:

A major dispute in Bedford over the route of the proposed East-West Rail line is threatening to derail the entire scheme. The cross-country railway is scheduled for opening in 2003 but is being hampered by delays in funding.

Plus ca change...

hooverboy · 14 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
This is naive in the extreme. It is simply a recipe for a complete loss of financial control. Your plan is to, essentially, assign £Xbn to a project on day one and let them crack on.

Why do posters here always seem to want to chuck away tax payers money?

EDIT - This idea would make my life much easier but it just isnt practical

I don't think that's entirely fair.

HS2 for instance is basically a project to try and compete with domestic flight times.lets say with check in/out ,flight time and security etc then london to edinburgh/glasgow in 3 hours.
for london workers this will basically extend the "commutable" distance people ar prepared to travel..about an hour each way would be tolerable for most people so that could potentially serve birmingham.

east west rail in it's own way is just as critical,but the line speeds are insanely slow compared to the ECML/WCML once you take connections into account.
At present you've only got a small selection of coaches running these routes,and capacity is limited,plus they are highly dependent on traffic flow through some pretty major towns/motorways,which isn't the best.they aren't exactly reliable.

fast tracking such projects is in no way wasting taxpayers money.You are saving a packet on road congestion,commuting times and improving additional leisure patronage.
not to mention the improved freight links.
my bet is pound for pound,EW rail is of vastly higher importance than HS2,but a nice shiny 250mph train will grab the headlines, where a regular 100mph service that halves travel time does not.

The Planner · 14 Nov 2019

hooverboy said:
my bet is pound for pound,EW rail is of vastly higher importance than HS2,but a nice shiny 250mph train will grab the headlines, where a regular 100mph service that halves travel time does not.

Behave, E-W is nowhere near as important as squeezing more capacity out of the WCML.

hooverboy · 14 Nov 2019

The Planner said:
Behave, E-W is nowhere near as important as squeezing more capacity out of the WCML.

It would be interesting to find out if the highways agency had any data regarding cummuting locations/distances/times and footfall.

I think with the dearth of good connections,EW travelling is in the vast majority done by car,which is something that really needs to be remedied.
The only way to do that is provide a viable alternative.

si404 · 14 Nov 2019

Even where the road is a high-quality expressway (M1-A1) rather than terrible, the traffic figures are a relatively low 20-25k. That's comparable to the A34 between Stafford and Stone, despite the fact that that is a local road with the M6 bypassing Stone.

Bletchleyite · 14 Nov 2019

hooverboy said:
HS2 for instance is basically a project to try and compete with domestic flight times

It's really not. HS2 is a project to improve capacity on the WCML, primarily but not exclusively that south of Northampton. That it will speed up trains to Scotland is really a side benefit.

You could call it the "South WCML Capacity Enhancement Project" and it would be more truthful.

Bald Rick · 14 Nov 2019

edwin_m said:
I think that can be addressed by saying you'd provisionally commit the maximum amount of money in say 10 years time that would result in a worthwhile business case. If as the scheme developed the forecast cost came down, then some of the future funding could be released for other purposes. If it went outside those limits (due to higher costs or lower benefits) then the funding would be cancelled and the promoters would have to look for means of improving the scheme to get it back in the queue.

Most rail projects probably qualify as being "big" and "landmark" and need some certainty of long-term funding before promotors commit (their money, usually not central government's) to development. And the presumption that the scheme would continue unless it missed its cost/benefit target or was actively stopped ought to help to take things out of the political arena once the initial decision was made. I said "provisional" and politicians would still have a right to cancel a scheme at any stage, but would have to actively do that and face the political consequences rather than just letting it lapse and leaving everyone in limbo. As to spending reviews, design work on HS2 continues despite it being under review. Once design has started, stopping and restarting will always cost more than letting a scheme continue while its future is under review.

Hmm. I’m devoting my 10,000th post to this.

I’m afraid that saying, at an early stage “keep going as long as the cost doesn’t exceed ‘x’” is, unfortunately an invitation for various parties to lob scope in, or demand compensation, until ‘x’ is reached. Or, in reality, a little bit more than ‘x’, as everyone knows that no-one is going to cancel a project that is three quarters built.

But, even if the cost could come down and funding wa to be released onto other projects .... what other projects? Because these other projects must have been developed up to s point and stopped pending funding which doesn’t exist unless and until other projects come in under budget; which would be highly unpredictable. So actually, whilst the problem might be solved for some projects, it would be rather worse for others.

The principle is that all projects should be delivered as efficiently as possible. It is a particular failing in the rail industry that there are regular inquisitions for projects that go over budget - sometimes when only a little over - but rarely inquisitions for projects that come in just under budget when with more effort they could have been way under. And then we are surprised when, on average, projects come in over budget.

Projects have always had review and decision points, even in BR days (when any investment over £2m, for anything, had to go to DfT); it is just that now they are more visible and comply with standard government controls for all projects (building hospitals, aircraft carriers, etc). It is also a similar in private industry - for example most energy companies use a very similar process for big projects, ie decision to develop / design / final investment decision. I have a couple of friends in ‘high places’ in the services industry and they have the same, albeit without political decision makers.

Whilst the process could be slicker, there is certainly nothing wrong about it as a process.

Chris125 · 15 Nov 2019

Kimi said:
To be honest, I am not convinced of the need to acquire (put out to tender) rolling stock so early, it just makes the cost upfront higher. In 5 years time, when it is needed, we don't know today what cascades will have happened! Another teams salaries paid too soon..
...Sure, it is also possible to procure too late, but east west rail is not rocket science different to any existing line, is it

If they were only considering bog-standard DMUs then it's perhaps excessive, but with electrification de-scoped alternatives like Hydrogen have been suggested instead - going down that route would be much more complex and lengthen timescales considerably.

Bletchleyite · 15 Nov 2019

Chris125 said:
If they were only considering bog-standard DMUs then it's perhaps excessive, but alternatives such as Hydrogen have been suggested and that's going to require more consideration and longer timescales.

It needs the wires. It's nuts that another diesel island in the South East is being created, unless it'll be wired when the Chiltern line is.

ashkeba · 15 Nov 2019

si404 said:
Even where the road is a high-quality expressway (M1-A1) rather than terrible, the traffic figures are a relatively low 20-25k. That's comparable to the A34 between Stafford and Stone, despite the fact that that is a local road with the M6 bypassing Stone.

Are you looking at the A421? There is something strange with the traffic figures along it, with one count point showing 25k and its neighbour showing 40k when I doubt almost half the traffic is taking the turn to the villages. There is also 15k on the A507, a smaller alternative that takes 30mins instead of 25 when both are clear.

edwin_m · 15 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
Hmm. I’m devoting my 10,000th post to this.

I’m afraid that saying, at an early stage “keep going as long as the cost doesn’t exceed ‘x’” is, unfortunately an invitation for various parties to lob scope in, or demand compensation, until ‘x’ is reached. Or, in reality, a little bit more than ‘x’, as everyone knows that no-one is going to cancel a project that is three quarters built.

But, even if the cost could come down and funding wa to be released onto other projects .... what other projects? Because these other projects must have been developed up to s point and stopped pending funding which doesn’t exist unless and until other projects come in under budget; which would be highly unpredictable. So actually, whilst the problem might be solved for some projects, it would be rather worse for others.

The principle is that all projects should be delivered as efficiently as possible. It is a particular failing in the rail industry that there are regular inquisitions for projects that go over budget - sometimes when only a little over - but rarely inquisitions for projects that come in just under budget when with more effort they could have been way under. And then we are surprised when, on average, projects come in over budget.

Projects have always had review and decision points, even in BR days (when any investment over £2m, for anything, had to go to DfT); it is just that now they are more visible and comply with standard government controls for all projects (building hospitals, aircraft carriers, etc). It is also a similar in private industry - for example most energy companies use a very similar process for big projects, ie decision to develop / design / final investment decision. I have a couple of friends in ‘high places’ in the services industry and they have the same, albeit without political decision makers.

Whilst the process could be slicker, there is certainly nothing wrong about it as a process.

I was being somewhat provocative in my post in a hope to elicit some suggestions of how things could be made to work better and reduce the delays in getting schemes delivered. Again any better ideas would be welcome.

si404 · 15 Nov 2019

ashkeba said:
Are you looking at the A421? There is something strange with the traffic figures along it, with one count point showing 25k and its neighbour showing 40k when I doubt almost half the traffic is taking the turn to the villages. There is also 15k on the A507, a smaller alternative that takes 30mins instead of 25 when both are clear.

That's weird. Yes, I took points either side of Bedford (to remove local traffic and N-S traffic using the A6 from the equation). On the west side, I clicked on the former A421 - the current one is showing 40k+, which seems reasonable.

On the east side, it's 40k from the A603 to the A4280, but then only 25k to the A1 - I guess the A4280 serves a lot of Bedford (so people turn off), and the A603 takes quite a bit of E-W traffic (eg to Sandy) meaning the A421 to St Neots and Cambridge doesn't take as much.

Cambridge-A1 is similarly sparse: 20k at Eltisley, 30k at Cambourne, 15k around St Neots. This isn't huge numbers for trunk roads. Obviously limited due to only being half-built, and perhaps Cambourne people are taking PT/cycling into Cambridge rather than driving, but it's not huge numbers demanding a new-build high-quality (electrified with long trains and high speed) heavy rail link.

E-W Rail needs demand to be created off the back of it, with new development.

DarloRich · 15 Nov 2019

hooverboy said:
I don't think that's entirely fair.

HS2 for instance is basically a project to try and compete with domestic flight times.lets say with check in/out ,flight time and security etc then london to edinburgh/glasgow in 3 hours.
for london workers this will basically extend the "commutable" distance people ar prepared to travel..about an hour each way would be tolerable for most people so that could potentially serve birmingham.

east west rail in it's own way is just as critical,but the line speeds are insanely slow compared to the ECML/WCML once you take connections into account.
At present you've only got a small selection of coaches running these routes,and capacity is limited,plus they are highly dependent on traffic flow through some pretty major towns/motorways,which isn't the best.they aren't exactly reliable.

fast tracking such projects is in no way wasting taxpayers money.You are saving a packet on road congestion,commuting times and improving additional leisure patronage.
not to mention the improved freight links.
my bet is pound for pound,EW rail is of vastly higher importance than HS2,but a nice shiny 250mph train will grab the headlines, where a regular 100mph service that halves travel time does not.

I am not sure you understand the points under discussion.

si404 · 15 Nov 2019

Bletchleyite said:
It needs the wires. It's nuts that another diesel island in the South East is being created, unless it'll be wired when the Chiltern line is.

It's not really an island, is it? For starters the Chiltern line (which it is arguably closely linked with, especially Oxford-Bedford) is diesel with no electrification plans beyond the 'no diesels in London' policy. But also the pre-existing eastern section (Cambridge-Norwich/Ipswich) is unelectrified, save for Cambridge-Ely.

It's also worth noting that when the Oxford electrification is finished, it would still end at Oxford, with nothing north of there (Bicester, Banbury, Evesham) wired.

If we do a systematic electrification program, I'd imagine E-W would have used diesels to begin with, with the aim to electrify when they get life expired. Stock will be a driver (and if they then get hand-me-down bi-modes that will push it back later) of where the electrification team(s) are located. It's going to be low down the priority list - similar to Ely-Norwich or Cambridge-Ipswich.

DarloRich · 15 Nov 2019

edwin_m said:
I would be very interested to hear of any better solutions that would avoid the stop-go approach while maintaining the financial control.

The first thing we need is honesty from posters here: many hold unrealistic expectations based on little/no experience.

Secondly, I would draw to the attention of the court the existence of the "Green Book": https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent ( I have read it. It is a thrilling read being as it is HM Treasury guidance on how to appraise and evaluate policies, projects and programmes.)

Thirdly, if it please the court, the recent move of NR funding from AME to DEL is going to have an impact on funding availability and make it even harder to secure funding without detailed information

AME: Annually Managed Expenditure aka a big bucket of cash that you use as you see fit as long as you dont run out before the funding round expires.
DEL: Departmental Expenditure Limits aka you have £Xbn to spend this year and if you over or under spend we will take money off you. Same as the NHS.

The answer is not to give up control of the finance and simply hand over a blank cheque as you suggest. The answer, and you wont like this, is to spend MORE time on scoping, specification, design and planning at the initial stage so that you have a robust estimate of time and cost when you reach the decision point prior to the delivery stage. That means we have to accept it will take quite a long time for a large project to progress through a stage. For a huge project like E-W that might mean several years to travel through a stage. For a smaller project you can roll stages together but for something as big as E-W that isnt going to be possible. One of the big problems is that project finance is often out of control precisely because these activities are not given enough time or importance at the outset and construction work commences before a detailed final scope/specification has been agreed and final detailed design work completed.

The answer is to quickly fund each stage ( but not the full project) have clear & robust success criteria set out for that stage before progressing and to ensure those criteria are assessed quickly. The problem is that these decisions cannot be taken in isolation ether within a railway context or within a political context which is something posters here miss. This is just one of lots of projects looking for funding. This might not be the best one available.

Politics is the choke point. Politics controls the money and the priority for investment of the scale needed to deliver E-W. Do you think that politicians, interested in the next electoral cycle, are going to give up financial control of a project that may take 3 cycles to deliver? Neither do I. They MIGHT give control to an independent infrastructure commission but that means they don't have control of any levers of public influence should they need a boost in the polls.

The question is not how to improve the delivery process generally but how to remove the politics from the funding process. If we cant disconnect the politics and the money we might be on to something.

Julia · 15 Nov 2019

si404 said:
Cambridge-A1 is similarly sparse: 20k at Eltisley, 30k at Cambourne, 15k around St Neots. This isn't huge numbers for trunk roads. Obviously limited due to only being half-built, and perhaps Cambourne people are taking PT/cycling into Cambridge rather than driving, but it's not huge numbers demanding a new-build high-quality (electrified with long trains and high speed) heavy rail link.

On the contrary, Cambridge-A1 counts are low because it's absolutely gridlocked every peak on the narrow section west of Caxton Gibbet, and on Madingley hill. PT from St Neots to central Cambridge takes 2h+ every single day (I know because I endure it rather than pay four thousand for a SNO-SVG-CMB season ticket). There is huge latent demand for some sort of alternative, given that the council are approving lots of employment development in Cambridge and housing everywhere else. Of course what we'll get is a dualled "new A428" which remains gridlocked because it doesn't tackle the real problem.

edwin_m · 15 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
The first thing we need is honesty from posters here: many hold unrealistic expectations based on little/no experience.

Secondly, I would draw to the attention of the court the existence of the "Green Book": https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent ( I have read it. It is a thrilling read being as it is HM Treasury guidance on how to appraise and evaluate policies, projects and programmes.)

Thirdly, if it please the court, the recent move of NR funding from AME to DEL is going to have an impact on funding availability and make it even harder to secure funding without detailed information

AME: Annually Managed Expenditure aka a big bucket of cash that you use as you see fit as long as you dont run out before the funding round expires.
DEL: Departmental Expenditure Limits aka you have £Xbn to spend this year and if you over or under spend we will take money off you. Same as the NHS.

The answer is not to give up control of the finance and simply hand over a blank cheque as you suggest. The answer, and you wont like this, is to spend MORE time on scoping, specification, design and planning at the initial stage so that you have a robust estimate of time and cost when you reach the decision point prior to the delivery stage. That means we have to accept it will take quite a long time for a large project to progress through a stage. For a huge project like E-W that might mean several years to travel through a stage. For a smaller project you can roll stages together but for something as big as E-W that isnt going to be possible. One of the big problems is that project finance is often out of control precisely because these activities are not given enough time or importance at the outset and construction work commences before a detailed final scope/specification has been agreed and final detailed design work completed.

The answer is to quickly fund each stage ( but not the full project) have clear & robust success criteria set out for that stage before progressing and to ensure those criteria are assessed quickly. The problem is that these decisions cannot be taken in isolation ether within a railway context or within a political context which is something posters here miss. This is just one of lots of projects looking for funding. This might not be the best one available.

Politics is the choke point. Politics controls the money and the priority for investment of the scale needed to deliver E-W. Do you think that politicians, interested in the next electoral cycle, are going to give up financial control of a project that may take 3 cycles to deliver? Neither do I. They MIGHT give control to an independent infrastructure commission but that means they don't have control of any levers of public influence should they need a boost in the polls.

The question is not how to improve the delivery process generally but how to remove the politics from the funding process. If we cant disconnect the politics and the money we might be on to something.

Thanks for your positive suggestions here. I'm not disagreeing at all! May reply in more detail later.

DarloRich · 15 Nov 2019

edwin_m said:
Thanks for your positive suggestions here. I'm not disagreeing at all! May reply in more detail later.

It took a while. Sorry.

hooverboy · 15 Nov 2019

Julia said:
On the contrary, Cambridge-A1 counts are low because it's absolutely gridlocked every peak on the narrow section west of Caxton Gibbet, and on Madingley hill. PT from St Neots to central Cambridge takes 2h+ every single day (I know because I endure it rather than pay four thousand for a SNO-SVG-CMB season ticket). There is huge latent demand for some sort of alternative, given that the council are approving lots of employment development in Cambridge and housing everywhere else. Of course what we'll get is a dualled "new A428" which remains gridlocked because it doesn't tackle the real problem.

anyone who has had the pleasure of traversing that particular section knows that's the truth!

the junction/stretch around black cat roundabout and A428 toward cambridge is absolutely terrible!
regular snarl-ups of 30-45 mins there.
no wonder traffic flow looks like it's on the low side.

the A428 out of bedford is also single carriageway,so more often than not you end up parked behind a HGV doing 40(supposedly a 60 limit). No safe place to overtake either so you have to stay there.

WesternS · 15 Nov 2019

Just a quick note of appreciation to DarloRich, Bald Rick and coppercapped (and Joseph Locke elsewhere) for their insights into the process from (legally-approved) crayoning to actual services. The comments re: "consultation occurs so you are treated the same as large corporations" is particularly apt, even if it doesn't feel like it at times.... Without these steps in the process, there would be lots of claims of 'riding roughshod over local concerns' etc etc. And in my experience (of water/wastewater and highways projects in various places across the world) no politician anywhere in the world is likely to (a) commit to a scheme that doesn't deliver something in their electoral cycle (unless of course there's mileage in opposing it...) and (b) giving up ultimate financial control over something sizeable. Goodness knows how long it would have taken the promoters to get the original London-Birmingham or the Grand Junction Railways built if they'd had to deal with more than just the Parliamentary process and local landowning aristocrats. Imagine the lobby power of the stagecoach and canal companies.....

hooverboy · 15 Nov 2019

WesternS said:
Just a quick note of appreciation to DarloRich, Bald Rick and coppercapped (and Joseph Locke elsewhere) for their insights into the process from (legally-approved) crayoning to actual services. The comments re: "consultation occurs so you are treated the same as large corporations" is particularly apt, even if it doesn't feel like it at times.... Without these steps in the process, there would be lots of claims of 'riding roughshod over local concerns' etc etc. And in my experience (of water/wastewater and highways projects in various places across the world) no politician anywhere in the world is likely to (a) commit to a scheme that doesn't deliver something in their electoral cycle (unless of course there's mileage in opposing it...) and (b) giving up ultimate financial control over something sizeable. Goodness knows how long it would have taken the promoters to get the original London-Birmingham or the Grand Junction Railways built if they'd had to deal with more than just the Parliamentary process and local landowning aristocrats. Imagine the lobby power of the stagecoach and canal companies.....

I think that's perhaps rather subjective.
a lot of the landowners of the day(back in 1700's/1800's) were not particularly in favour of having their landscape spoiled by those iron monstrocities-same applies with canals..hence why so many tunnels got built to go through them,even though from an engineering perspective it was a far more long-winded and challenging prospect.

If the landowner had a direct benefit(usually financial by way of owning local busineses that could benefit from faster/cheaper supplies of fuel), the thing got a far easier passage.

what's to say modern day landowners(read employers), DON'T have a benefit of having their staff turn up less fatigued through long winded commutes.
not to mention a bigger pool of prospective employees if people have the means to travel/will not cost so much

cambridge for instance has a large number of RF/telecom/software/IT and pharma companies.
a better link is the difference between somebody skilled maybe accepting a PAYE job in the area ,or going contract which is around triple the rate for an employer to fork out.

bspahh · 15 Nov 2019

If you are waiting for some infrastructure to get built, then an extended period of planning and design is a bad thing. However, it probably ends up with a better design than you would have got if you just built the first proposal.

For example, this is a podcast https://www.ruleofthreepod.com/blog/charlie-brooker-on-airplane where Charlie Brooker and comedy writers Joel Morris & Jason Hazeley talk about the first Airplane! movie. That script went through 30 iterations, but it ended up as a much better movie than the sequels.

hooverboy · 15 Nov 2019

bspahh said:
If you are waiting for some infrastructure to get built, then an extended period of planning and design is a bad thing. However, it probably ends up with a better design than you would have got if you just built the first proposal.

For example, this is a podcast https://www.ruleofthreepod.com/blog/charlie-brooker-on-airplane where Charlie Brooker and comedy writers Joel Morris & Jason Hazeley talk about the first Airplane! movie. That script went through 30 iterations, but it ended up as a much better movie than the sequels.

not unusual at all for a project to have several revisions,but they usually have a barebones sample on the table first to prove the concept works.The rest is generally refinements

it's a rather tenous link you posted, but there is a sort of merit in it, ie in airplanes case the jokes could be road tested a bit, some jokes would be "in" and some not.

you could argue that certain environmental parameters,and their supposed solutions(at the moment), presently are the "in" jokes. they may not have quite the same clout in a couple of years,and minimising fuel consumption by reducing congestion takes more precedence over the coming years, rather than legislating or taxing usage

East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation