Discussion:
Metropolitan Line Extension doomed
(too old to reply)
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2017-11-02 16:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Short version:
The Metropolitan Line Extension is doomed because costs have increased
and there is no money.

Slightly longer version:
Since taking over the MLX project, TfL has worked with the supply
chain and Network Rail to progress the design and obtain market prices
for delivery. The outturn cost of the project will be significantly in
excess of £284.4m. The increased project costs weaken the MLX business
case. The deteriorating business case and loss of its operating grant
mean that TfL is no longer able to bear cost risk above the current
£284.4m funding package.

http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.no/2017/11/mayoral-decision-metropolitan-line.html
--
jhk
Recliner
2017-11-02 17:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
The Metropolitan Line Extension is doomed because costs have increased
and there is no money.
Since taking over the MLX project, TfL has worked with the supply
chain and Network Rail to progress the design and obtain market prices
for delivery. The outturn cost of the project will be significantly in
excess of £284.4m. The increased project costs weaken the MLX business
case. The deteriorating business case and loss of its operating grant
mean that TfL is no longer able to bear cost risk above the current
£284.4m funding package.
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.no/2017/11/mayoral-decision-metropolitan-line.html
I think that's been the situation for at least the last six months, and
probably much longer. It may be why TfL bought an extra S7+1 train, instead
of the S8 that this extension would have used.

It's been discussed here several times, and I still struggle to understand
how a short extension on to a mainly existing trackbed (apart from one new
viaduct) can cost around £350m. I wonder how much cheaper it could be if
the two new stations were reduced to a much simpler standard?

But even if the cost could be brought back down to a 'mere' £284m, the
business case is still very thin (little extra revenue or traffic).
tim...
2017-11-02 17:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
The Metropolitan Line Extension is doomed because costs have increased
and there is no money.
Since taking over the MLX project, TfL has worked with the supply
chain and Network Rail to progress the design and obtain market prices
for delivery. The outturn cost of the project will be significantly in
excess of £284.4m. The increased project costs weaken the MLX business
case. The deteriorating business case and loss of its operating grant
mean that TfL is no longer able to bear cost risk above the current
£284.4m funding package.
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.no/2017/11/mayoral-decision-metropolitan-line.html
I think that's been the situation for at least the last six months, and
probably much longer. It may be why TfL bought an extra S7+1 train, instead
of the S8 that this extension would have used.
It's been discussed here several times, and I still struggle to understand
how a short extension on to a mainly existing trackbed (apart from one new
viaduct) can cost around £350m. I wonder how much cheaper it could be if
the two new stations were reduced to a much simpler standard?
But even if the cost could be brought back down to a 'mere' £284m, the
business case is still very thin (little extra revenue or traffic).
This is the downside of the nonsensical solution that we have in the UK of
insisting that you fund a complete project before you start it

If this was almost any other country it would be built and funded in stages,
and we would have started the first (in this case the most expensive part)
yonks ago and adding the extra knobs on wouldn't look so expensive now.

tim
b***@cylonHQ.com
2017-11-03 09:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:25:08 -0000
Post by tim...
This is the downside of the nonsensical solution that we have in the UK of
insisting that you fund a complete project before you start it
If this was almost any other country it would be built and funded in stages,
And in other countries funding runs out midway and you end up with bits of
unused civil engineering scattered about the place and lots of money wasted.
Eg the never completed section of the charleroi metro that was mentioned in
uk.railway recently.
tim...
2017-11-03 17:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:25:08 -0000
Post by tim...
This is the downside of the nonsensical solution that we have in the UK of
insisting that you fund a complete project before you start it
If this was almost any other country it would be built and funded in stages,
And in other countries funding runs out midway and you end up with bits of
unused civil engineering scattered about the place and lots of money wasted.
This is not what usually happens.

You might find that only half an extension gets built, but what is built is
usable (and worthwhile)

tim
b***@cylonHQ.com
2017-11-03 09:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:05:58 -0000 (UTC)
But even if the cost could be brought back down to a 'mere' £284m, the
business case is still very thin (little extra revenue or traffic).
I never understood the rationale behind it. Who would use it? Certainly not
many people who wanted to go from central london to watford junction. So that
leaves people in north west london and buckinghamshire who want to go there and
can't drive. Probably quite a small amount. If the idea was simply to get
a tube line back to watford junction then just re-extend the bakerloo.
Recliner
2017-11-03 09:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:05:58 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
But even if the cost could be brought back down to a 'mere' £284m, the
business case is still very thin (little extra revenue or traffic).
I never understood the rationale behind it. Who would use it? Certainly not
many people who wanted to go from central london to watford junction. So that
leaves people in north west london and buckinghamshire who want to go there and
can't drive. Probably quite a small amount. If the idea was simply to get
a tube line back to watford junction then just re-extend the bakerloo.
No, that's not the reason. It's mainly to serve the two new Watford
stations, giving them connections to the Met, LO and the Junction station.
That's why Watford and Hertfordshire are keen on it, but TfL is
indifferent.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2017-11-03 09:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:34:09 GMT
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:05:58 -0000 (UTC)
But even if the cost could be brought back down to a 'mere' £284m, the
business case is still very thin (little extra revenue or traffic).
I never understood the rationale behind it. Who would use it? Certainly not
many people who wanted to go from central london to watford junction. So
that
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
leaves people in north west london and buckinghamshire who want to go there
and
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
can't drive. Probably quite a small amount. If the idea was simply to get
a tube line back to watford junction then just re-extend the bakerloo.
No, that's not the reason. It's mainly to serve the two new Watford
stations, giving them connections to the Met, LO and the Junction station.
That's why Watford and Hertfordshire are keen on it, but TfL is
indifferent.
I'm sure that would be nice for maybe the few hundred residents who may
use them, but its hardly worth spending hundreds of millions on when looking
at google earth it would seem that none of that section of line is more than
a mile from either watford or watford junction stations anyway.
Recliner
2017-11-03 09:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:34:09 GMT
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:05:58 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
But even if the cost could be brought back down to a 'mere' £284m, the
business case is still very thin (little extra revenue or traffic).
I never understood the rationale behind it. Who would use it? Certainly not
many people who wanted to go from central london to watford junction. So
that
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
leaves people in north west london and buckinghamshire who want to go there
and
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
can't drive. Probably quite a small amount. If the idea was simply to get
a tube line back to watford junction then just re-extend the bakerloo.
No, that's not the reason. It's mainly to serve the two new Watford
stations, giving them connections to the Met, LO and the Junction station.
That's why Watford and Hertfordshire are keen on it, but TfL is
indifferent.
I'm sure that would be nice for maybe the few hundred residents who may
use them, but its hardly worth spending hundreds of millions on when looking
at google earth it would seem that none of that section of line is more than
a mile from either watford or watford junction stations anyway.
Look more closely: it's not just residents who'd use it. But the costs are
way out of line with the potential benefits. It's also not TfL's job to
deliver local transport to people that far out of London.
Basil Jet
2017-11-03 17:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:05:58 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
But even if the cost could be brought back down to a 'mere' £284m, the
business case is still very thin (little extra revenue or traffic).
I never understood the rationale behind it. Who would use it? Certainly not
many people who wanted to go from central london to watford junction. So that
leaves people in north west london and buckinghamshire who want to go there and
can't drive. Probably quite a small amount. If the idea was simply to get
a tube line back to watford junction then just re-extend the bakerloo.
No, that's not the reason. It's mainly to serve the two new Watford
stations, giving them connections to the Met, LO and the Junction station.
That's why Watford and Hertfordshire are keen on it, but TfL is
indifferent.
Why does Watford need multiple satellite stations, when Leicester, Hull,
Swindon, Norwich etc don't have that?
Roland Perry
2017-11-03 17:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Why does Watford need multiple satellite stations, when Leicester,
Hull, Swindon, Norwich etc don't have that?
Because Acton does?
--
Roland Perry
b***@cylonHQ.com
2017-11-06 09:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:40:16 +0000
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:05:58 -0000 (UTC)
But even if the cost could be brought back down to a 'mere' £284m, the
business case is still very thin (little extra revenue or traffic).
I never understood the rationale behind it. Who would use it? Certainly not
many people who wanted to go from central london to watford junction. So
that
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
leaves people in north west london and buckinghamshire who want to go there
and
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
can't drive. Probably quite a small amount. If the idea was simply to get
a tube line back to watford junction then just re-extend the bakerloo.
No, that's not the reason. It's mainly to serve the two new Watford
stations, giving them connections to the Met, LO and the Junction station.
That's why Watford and Hertfordshire are keen on it, but TfL is
indifferent.
Why does Watford need multiple satellite stations, when Leicester, Hull,
Swindon, Norwich etc don't have that?
Because they're in the Here Be Dragons part of the country.

If any of those cities were on the continent they'd probably have a tram
service.

Loading...