Discussion:
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
(too old to reply)
Adrian
2008-03-24 18:35:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 24, 2:41 am, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Mizter T" <***@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > My reading of Ken's comments are that (a) he fully understands that
> > Crossrail is a project of great enormity and he will treat it as such,
>
> I hope you don't really mean that - it is an enormous project, but surely
> not one of great wickedness.
>
> [NB - for those who may not understand my point, may I respectfully suggest
> that they look up 'enormity' in a dictionary.]
>
> Peter

A much more common mistake is the misuse of the word "prestigious".

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

Adrian
The Real Doctor
2008-03-24 19:46:58 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

Essential to /what/?

Ian
Adrian
2008-03-24 20:13:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> Essential to /what/?
>
> Ian

It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore
that to anything like acceptable levels.
The Real Doctor
2008-03-24 22:25:26 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> > Essential to /what/?

> It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
> Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.

It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending £16bn on.

Ian
Adrian
2008-03-24 23:05:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 24, 3:25 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> > > Essential to /what/?
> > It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
> > Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
>
> It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
> ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
> but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
> going to be worth spending £16bn on.
>
> Ian

If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
then you should oppose Crossrail.

Adrian
Charles Ellson
2008-03-25 02:42:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:05:33 -0700 (PDT), Adrian
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mar 24, 3:25 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>>
>> > > Essential to /what/?
>> > It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
>> > Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
>>
>> It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
>> ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
>> but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
>> going to be worth spending £16bn on.
>>
>> Ian
>
>If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
>then you should oppose Crossrail.
>
Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is
no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when
the City of London was full of messengers running around with
negotiable documents.
Jane Sullivan
2008-03-25 08:56:28 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson
<***@ellson.demon.co.uk> writes
>Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is
>no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when
>the City of London was full of messengers running around with
>negotiable documents.

I work in IT in the finance industry, at Canary Wharf

- The transport links are abysmal, and during the rush hours trains
are always overcrowded.
- I have "modern technology" links at home (Broadband and phone) and I
am allowed to work from home occasionally (i.e. not all the time,
and there has to be a good reason).
- It is much easier and more convenient to do my job in the office.
- Yes, you can have meetings via conference call over the phone, but
it is much better to get everyone together in an office.
- It is far easier to get things from a colleague by going to their
desk and having a quiet chat than by phoning them.
- My clients on the trading desks are not allowed to do their jobs
from home. This is a regulatory requirement.
- Lastly and most importantly - you can't have a drink with your
colleagues and clients after work if you're all working from home.
--
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden
http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
Tom Anderson
2008-03-25 16:54:19 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Jane Sullivan wrote:

> In message <***@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson
> <***@ellson.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>> Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is
>> no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when
>> the City of London was full of messengers running around with
>> negotiable documents.
>
> I work in IT in the finance industry, at

I think the point was not that everyone can telecommute instead of going
into an office, but rather that the various offices don't need to be in
the same place. You could quite easily put a tower full of stockjobbers
and allied trades somwhere miles from the City, like, for example, er ...

> Canary Wharf

Exactly.

Although Canary Wharf has missed this point. Instead of distributing
offices into the suburbs or wherever, it's created a second City.

I should add that i'm not convinced that Mr Ellson's argument is correct.
There may be advantages to having offices of related businesses in close
physical proximity; it certainly seems to be a pattern of urban
development that's been remarkably constant, even after the introduction
of the car, the telephone, and all the kinds of electronic communication
that have come since.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born
The Real Doctor
2008-03-25 07:56:57 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Mar, 23:05, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 3:25 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:

> > It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
> > ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
> > but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
> > going to be worth spending £16bn on.

> If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
> then you should oppose Crossrail.

That's just being silly.

Ian
Grumpy Old Man
2008-03-25 09:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 3:25 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
> >
> > > > Essential to /what/?
> > > It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
> > > Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
> >
> > It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
> > ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
> > but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
> > going to be worth spending £16bn on.
> >
> > Ian
>
> If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
> then you should oppose Crossrail.
>
> Adrian

It'll take more than Crossrail to save London. It is gradually sinking, in a
century or two it will be under the water.
Martin Edwards
2008-03-25 15:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Grumpy Old Man wrote:
> Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 3:25 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>>>>> Essential to /what/?
>>>> It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
>>>> Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
>>> It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
>>> ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
>>> but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
>>> going to be worth spending £16bn on.
>>>
>>> Ian
>> If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
>> then you should oppose Crossrail.
>>
>> Adrian
>
> It'll take more than Crossrail to save London. It is gradually sinking, in a
> century or two it will be under the water.

See JG Ballard's very first novel, The Drowned World.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
The Stainless Steel Cat
2008-03-25 18:53:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <5b6e5114-7555-42b9-8e2b-***@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.c,
Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mar 24, 3:25=A0pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
>> ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
>> but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
>> going to be worth spending =A316bn on.
>>
>> Ian
>
>If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
>then you should oppose Crossrail.

Should we be thinking of a financial *centre* at all? It seems such a 19th
century idea...

Cat.
Dan G
2008-03-24 23:00:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 24, 8:13 pm, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> > Essential to /what/?
>
> > Ian
>
> It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
> Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
> However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore
> that to anything like acceptable levels.

"They" keep saying the same thing about Heathrow and a third runway --
as if, if it's not built, that suddenly nobody will ever fly into or
out of Heathrow ever again. Somehow I doubt that, and I doubt London
would grind to a halt and go bankrupt if it didn't get Crossrail.

Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?
Adrian
2008-03-24 23:10:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:13 pm, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> > > Essential to /what/?
>
> > > Ian
>
> > It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
> > Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
> > However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore
> > that to anything like acceptable levels.
>
> "They" keep saying the same thing about Heathrow and a third runway --
> as if, if it's not built, that suddenly nobody will ever fly into or
> out of Heathrow ever again. Somehow I doubt that, and I doubt London
> would grind to a halt and go bankrupt if it didn't get Crossrail.
>
> Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
> so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a
pointer in that respect.

You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
is 40 minutes or less.

London is joining the ranks of the un-livable cities.
Arthur Figgis
2008-03-25 07:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Adrian wrote:
> On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 8:13 pm, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>>>> Essential to /what/?
>>>> Ian
>>> It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
>>> Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
>>> However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore
>>> that to anything like acceptable levels.
>> "They" keep saying the same thing about Heathrow and a third runway --
>> as if, if it's not built, that suddenly nobody will ever fly into or
>> out of Heathrow ever again. Somehow I doubt that, and I doubt London
>> would grind to a halt and go bankrupt if it didn't get Crossrail.
>>
>> Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
>> so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?
>
> In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
> engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a
> pointer in that respect.

So are we saying that , because a High Speed Line would be mostly away
from London, it could be built to a lower standard than something
important like a small-profile tube line?

> You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
> ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
> workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
> is 40 minutes or less.
>
> London is joining the ranks of the un-livable cities.

If it gets any fuller no-one will live there...


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
The Real Doctor
2008-03-25 08:00:53 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
> > so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?
>
> In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
> engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a
> pointer in that respect.

But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the
Jubilee Line extension ...

> You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
> ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
> workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
> is 40 minutes or less.

And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable
housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour,
tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really
deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing?

Ian
Grumpy Old Man
2008-03-25 09:53:10 UTC
Permalink
The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
> > > so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?
> >
> > In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
> > engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a
> > pointer in that respect.
>
> But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the
> Jubilee Line extension ...
>
> > You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
> > ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
> > workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
> > is 40 minutes or less.
>
> And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable
> housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour,
> tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really
> deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing?
>
> Ian

The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to have a
smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years.
Neil Williams
2008-03-25 10:01:57 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:53:10 GMT, "Grumpy Old Man"
<***@i.do.not.believe.it> wrote:

>The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to have a
>smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years.

There is that. The other option would be to become more like Germany
and less London-centric. Serious tax breaks for locating employment
in a city other than London would be a good start, and the Government
should seriously look towards any new civil service jobs that don't
*have* to be in London being somewhere else instead.

The other problem (the "affordable" bit) is that houses should be to
live in, not to invest in.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Graeme Wall
2008-03-25 12:21:21 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>
***@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:53:10 GMT, "Grumpy Old Man"
> <***@i.do.not.believe.it> wrote:
>
> > The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to
> > have a smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years.
>
> There is that. The other option would be to become more like Germany
> and less London-centric. Serious tax breaks for locating employment
> in a city other than London would be a good start, and the Government
> should seriously look towards any new civil service jobs that don't
> *have* to be in London being somewhere else instead.

They've been trying that since the 1950s at least, works well doesn't it?

>
> The other problem (the "affordable" bit) is that houses should be to
> live in, not to invest in.
>

If you want to rent somewhere to live someone else has to invest in buying it
in the first place.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Neil Williams
2008-03-25 12:35:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:21:21 +0000, Graeme Wall
<***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>They've been trying that since the 1950s at least, works well doesn't it?

Do you propose that further growth of London is feasible, then?

>If you want to rent somewhere to live someone else has to invest in buying it
>in the first place.

This is true, though the difference between rents and mortgages in
many places suggests that there is not a correct balance.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Graeme Wall
2008-03-25 13:38:58 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>
***@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:21:21 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >They've been trying that since the 1950s at least, works well doesn't it?
>
> Do you propose that further growth of London is feasible, then?

I'd say it was inevitable.

>
> > If you want to rent somewhere to live someone else has to invest in
> > buying it in the first place.
>
> This is true, though the difference between rents and mortgages in
> many places suggests that there is not a correct balance.
>

Which means?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Neil Williams
2008-03-25 19:59:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:38:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
<***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> Do you propose that further growth of London is feasible, then?
>
>I'd say it was inevitable.

I'd say we should be doing our utmost to avoid it, unless it is things
that can go on only in London.

>> This is true, though the difference between rents and mortgages in
>> many places suggests that there is not a correct balance.
>
>Which means?

It is vastly cheaper to rent than buy on a monthly basis in many
places these days. Certainly, in Milton Keynes one would pay about
£500 per month to rent a one-bed flat but £700-800 per month to
purchase it using a repayment mortgage. The main reason for this is
that there is a glut of rental property on the market. Given the
limited amount of property, this will necessarily cause purchase
prices to rise.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Peter Masson
2008-03-25 20:14:28 UTC
Permalink
"Neil Williams" <***@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote
>
> It is vastly cheaper to rent than buy on a monthly basis in many
> places these days. Certainly, in Milton Keynes one would pay about
> £500 per month to rent a one-bed flat but £700-800 per month to
> purchase it using a repayment mortgage. The main reason for this is
> that there is a glut of rental property on the market. Given the
> limited amount of property, this will necessarily cause purchase
> prices to rise.
>
If the owners of buy to rent property start to think that property sale
prices have stopped rising they will sell and invest the money elsewhere -
this will increase the stock of sale property and bring prices down, while
reducing the stock of rental property pushing rental costs up.

Peter
tim (not at home)
2008-03-26 19:26:13 UTC
Permalink
"Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:***@bt.com...
>
> "Neil Williams" <***@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote
>>
>> It is vastly cheaper to rent than buy on a monthly basis in many
>> places these days. Certainly, in Milton Keynes one would pay about
>> £500 per month to rent a one-bed flat but £700-800 per month to
>> purchase it using a repayment mortgage. The main reason for this is
>> that there is a glut of rental property on the market. Given the
>> limited amount of property, this will necessarily cause purchase
>> prices to rise.
>>
> If the owners of buy to rent property start to think that property sale
> prices have stopped rising they will sell and invest the money elsewhere -
> this will increase the stock of sale property and bring prices down,

lets' hope so :-)

tim

> while
> reducing the stock of rental property pushing rental costs up.
>
> Peter
>
>
Graeme Wall
2008-03-25 21:04:28 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>
***@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:38:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Do you propose that further growth of London is feasible, then?
> >
> >I'd say it was inevitable.
>
> I'd say we should be doing our utmost to avoid it, unless it is things
> that can go on only in London.

Who is this We?

>
> >> This is true, though the difference between rents and mortgages in
> >> many places suggests that there is not a correct balance.
> >
> >Which means?
>
> It is vastly cheaper to rent than buy on a monthly basis in many
> places these days. Certainly, in Milton Keynes one would pay about
> £500 per month to rent a one-bed flat but £700-800 per month to
> purchase it using a repayment mortgage. The main reason for this is
> that there is a glut of rental property on the market.

Which presumably explains why rents seem to be increasing rapidly at the
moment.

> Given the limited amount of property, this will necessarily cause purchase
> prices to rise.
>

Have you looked out of your window lately?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Andy
2008-03-25 11:34:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 25, 8:00 am, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
> > > so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?
>
> > In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
> > engineered to a very high standard.  The Jubilee Line extension is a
> > pointer in that respect.
>
> But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the
> Jubilee Line extension ...
>
> > You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
> > ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
> > workers.  Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
> > is 40 minutes or less.
>
> And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable
> housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour,
> tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really
> deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing?
>
> Ian

But wasn't the main justification for crossrail the relief of the
overcrowding already present on existing lines, as well as allowing
for predicted growth. It will take a fair number of people off the
Central line (and other Underground lines) as well as providing extra
capacity on the National Rail lines to either side.

The fact that it will reduce journey times is an added benefit, but
not the main justification for the construction.
Tom Anderson
2008-03-25 17:01:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

> On Mar 25, 8:00 am, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
>>>> so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?
>>
>>> In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
>>> engineered to a very high standard.  The Jubilee Line extension is a
>>> pointer in that respect.
>>
>> But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the
>> Jubilee Line extension ...
>>
>>> You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
>>> ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
>>> workers.  Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
>>> is 40 minutes or less.
>>
>> And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable
>> housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour,
>> tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really
>> deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing?
>
> But wasn't the main justification for crossrail the relief of the
> overcrowding already present on existing lines, as well as allowing
> for predicted growth. It will take a fair number of people off the
> Central line (and other Underground lines) as well as providing extra
> capacity on the National Rail lines to either side.

Except it won't. It will relieve the Central line west of Stratford, for
sure, which in practice means Stratford to Oxford Circus. But it doesn't
actually add any capacity at all to the Great Eastern or Western railways
- every path that Crossrail will use is currently used by a normal train.
Crossrail trains will be a bit longer, but you could deliver the same
capacity increase by adapting those lines for longer trains without the
central tunnel bit for a lot less money.

> The fact that it will reduce journey times is an added benefit, but not
> the main justification for the construction.

It also won't reduce journey times much. Trips you can make with Crossrail
can currently be made with train plus Central line via quite easy changes
at Stratford or Ealing Broadway (or more painful ones at Liverpool Street
or Paddington, after a quicker run to the terminal). It will make the
trips a lot more convenient by eliminating those changes, but not hugely
faster.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born
Andy
2008-03-25 17:46:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 25, 5:01 pm, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 8:00 am, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
> >>>> so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?
>
> >>> In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
> >>> engineered to a very high standard.  The Jubilee Line extension is a
> >>> pointer in that respect.
>
> >> But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the
> >> Jubilee Line extension ...
>
> >>> You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
> >>> ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
> >>> workers.  Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
> >>> is 40 minutes or less.
>
> >> And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable
> >> housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour,
> >> tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really
> >> deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing?
>
> > But wasn't the main justification for crossrail the relief of the
> > overcrowding already present on existing lines, as well as allowing
> > for predicted growth. It will take a fair number of people off the
> > Central line (and other Underground lines) as well as providing extra
> > capacity on the National Rail lines to either side.
>
> Except it won't. It will relieve the Central line west of Stratford, for
> sure, which in practice means Stratford to Oxford Circus. But it doesn't
> actually add any capacity at all to the Great Eastern or Western railways
> - every path that Crossrail will use is currently used by a normal train.
> Crossrail trains will be a bit longer, but you could deliver the same
> capacity increase by adapting those lines for longer trains without the
> central tunnel bit for a lot less money.
>

It will also relieve the Circle, Met, H&C, the Bakerloo and the
Jubilee, at least. If you look back, the relief of already overcrowed
underground lines was always the main reason behind the plans. The
services to/from the West will gain a considerable increase in
capacity, with 10 car trains replacing the current shorter DMUs. The
services to/from the East will generally also gain in train length, as
the stopping trains are mostly (all?) eight cars.

> > The fact that it will reduce journey times is an added benefit, but not
> > the main justification for the construction.
>
> It also won't reduce journey times much. Trips you can make with Crossrail
> can currently be made with train plus Central line via quite easy changes
> at Stratford or Ealing Broadway (or more painful ones at Liverpool Street
> or Paddington, after a quicker run to the terminal). It will make the
> trips a lot more convenient by eliminating those changes, but not hugely
> faster.
>

There will certainly be faster journey times on the western side, as
the EMUs will accelerate considerably better than the Turbos and with
all (at least during the peak) trains being of the same type pathing
will be slightly easier. There is also the consideration of having to
leave time for delays on the underground when heading home. A change
of train at either Ealing or Paddington means having to pad your
journey a fair amount. I do agree that this is less of a problem on
the Eastern side though.

Don't forget that the capacity doesn't just deal with the trains, but
the space needed at the stations for interchange. A fair amount of the
costs of Crossrail stations in central london will be needed anyway as
the current underground stations can't cope. Oxford Circus is
sometimes closed due to overcrowding, and Tottenham Court Road always
a bit of a nightmare to get around, even off peak.

> tom
>
> --
> I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
> epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
> trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born
Tom Anderson
2008-03-25 23:49:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

> On Mar 25, 5:01 pm, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:
>>
>>> But wasn't the main justification for crossrail the relief of the
>>> overcrowding already present on existing lines, as well as allowing
>>> for predicted growth. It will take a fair number of people off the
>>> Central line (and other Underground lines) as well as providing extra
>>> capacity on the National Rail lines to either side.
>>
>> Except it won't. It will relieve the Central line west of Stratford,
>> for sure, which in practice means Stratford to Oxford Circus. But it
>> doesn't actually add any capacity at all to the Great Eastern or
>> Western railways - every path that Crossrail will use is currently used
>> by a normal train. Crossrail trains will be a bit longer, but you could
>> deliver the same capacity increase by adapting those lines for longer
>> trains without the central tunnel bit for a lot less money.
>
> It will also relieve the Circle, Met, H&C, the Bakerloo and the
> Jubilee, at least.

You're right, it will relieve the Circle/Met/H&C between Liverpool Street
and Farringdon, my bad. The Bakerloo too, but this is not exactly
overcrowded as it stands. The Jubilee?

> If you look back, the relief of already overcrowed underground lines was
> always the main reason behind the plans.

Kind of. I've read all of the rail studies that have led to Crossrail over
the last 20 years or so, and one thing that's conspicuously absent is a
solid justification. The studies take it as a starting point that an
east-west rail tunnel will be built, and just look at the details of how
best to do it.

> The services to/from the West will gain a considerable increase in
> capacity, with 10 car trains replacing the current shorter DMUs. The
> services to/from the East will generally also gain in train length, as
> the stopping trains are mostly (all?) eight cars.

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

>>> The fact that it will reduce journey times is an added benefit, but not
>>> the main justification for the construction.
>>
>> It also won't reduce journey times much. Trips you can make with Crossrail
>> can currently be made with train plus Central line via quite easy changes
>> at Stratford or Ealing Broadway (or more painful ones at Liverpool Street
>> or Paddington, after a quicker run to the terminal). It will make the
>> trips a lot more convenient by eliminating those changes, but not hugely
>> faster.
>
> There will certainly be faster journey times on the western side, as the
> EMUs will accelerate considerably better than the Turbos and with all
> (at least during the peak) trains being of the same type pathing will be
> slightly easier.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

> There is also the consideration of having to leave time for delays on
> the underground when heading home. A change of train at either Ealing or
> Paddington means having to pad your journey a fair amount. I do agree
> that this is less of a problem on the Eastern side though.

I wonder how much rearranging Ealing Broadway for better interchange from
NR to LU would cost. Probably a lot.

> Don't forget that the capacity doesn't just deal with the trains, but
> the space needed at the stations for interchange. A fair amount of the
> costs of Crossrail stations in central london will be needed anyway as
> the current underground stations can't cope. Oxford Circus is sometimes
> closed due to overcrowding, and Tottenham Court Road always a bit of a
> nightmare to get around, even off peak.

Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born
Mr Thant
2008-03-26 00:11:16 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

> True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
> price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current
iteration of the project.

> Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

> Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
> Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
> essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
> overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
> clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford
Circus will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly
to attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford
Circus area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot
more passengers.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London
Andy
2008-03-26 08:49:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 26, 12:11 am, Mr Thant
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
> > The Jubilee?
>
> To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
> Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.
>

Indeed, why do you think that TfL bought forward the lengthening of
the Jubilee line trains to seven cars by several years. It was because
the Waterloo / London Bridge - Docklands section was already getting
overcrowded. The Crossrail service from the Abbey Wood will take a
fair part of that burden.
Tom Anderson
2008-03-26 18:53:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

> On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> The Jubilee?
>
> To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
> Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

>> True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
>> price.
>
> And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
> work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
> of the project.

Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
provided much more cheaply.

>> Again, could be done without the tunnel.
>
> And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
> Liverpool Street?

Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible,
although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to
confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do
we need more platforms?

>> Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
>> Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
>> essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
>> overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
>> clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.
>
> Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus
> will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to
> attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus
> area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more
> passengers.

If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
can abstract passengers away from the Central line.

tom

--
GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music
both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK
Andy
2008-03-26 19:38:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 26, 6:53 pm, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
> > On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
> >> The Jubilee?
>
> > To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
> > Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.
>
> Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
> the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
> exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
> already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
> that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.
>

There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers
in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London
Bridge for the Jubilee line.

> >> True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
> >> price.
>
> > And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
> > work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
> > of the project.
>
> Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
> snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
> increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
> provided much more cheaply.
>

But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the
Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline.
How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across
London without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers
taken off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street /
Stratford will give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia
lines.

> >> Again, could be done without the tunnel.
>
> > And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
> > Liverpool Street?
>
> Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
> capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible,
> although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to
> confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do
> we need more platforms?
>

Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length
(12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance
to platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I
don't think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street
also suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18
limited to 8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these
platforms will be the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels.

> >> Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
> >> Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
> >> essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
> >> overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
> >> clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.
>
> > Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus
> > will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to
> > attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus
> > area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more
> > passengers.
>
> If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
> going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
> enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
> can abstract passengers away from the Central line.
>

The difference in getting to the Victoria line is that it will be
easier to enter the station. It will also mean that Oxford Circus
doesn't need to be expensively rebuilt to add capacity for entrance /
exit.
Mizter T
2008-03-26 19:56:06 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Mar, 18:53, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

> > On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
> >> The Jubilee?
>
> > To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
> > Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.
>
> Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
> the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
> exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
> already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
> that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.
>

You've a point about North Kent / south east London commuters who are
likely to already be interchanging with the DLR at Greenwich or
Lewisham.

However Lewisham/Greenwich - Canary Wharf DLR trains are rammed during
the rush hour, not least with many passengers who are making such an
interchange.

Interchange to Crossrail at Abbey Wood would be an option for some of
these passengers.

Note that as well as London to Dartford stopping services, Abbey Wood
is also served by Charing X to Gillingham (via Rochester and Chatham)
trains. These do also stop at Lewisham, so interchange is indeed
available with the overcrowded DLR there (note that these trains also
stop at Woolwich Arsenal).

However the South London RUS makes clear that Lewisham station is
badly struggling to reliably handle the number of trains that
currently stop there - if this service could be diverted away from
Lewisham that would definitely be of very significant benefit.
(Passengers would also have the option of changing to the DLR at
Woolwich Arsenal for other Docklands destinations.)

I've absolutely no idea if what I'm about to suggest is remotely
feasible, but if more trains from Kent were to stop at Abbey Wood then
this would provide some relief for the Jubilee line by removing a
number of passengers who arrive at London Bridge then 'double-back' on
the Jubilee to the Docklands.
R.C. Payne
2008-03-26 20:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Mizter T wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 18:53, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
>
>>>On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>>The Jubilee?
>>>To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
>>>Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.
>>Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
>>the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
>>exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
>>already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
>>that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.
>>
>
> You've a point about North Kent / south east London commuters who are
> likely to already be interchanging with the DLR at Greenwich or
> Lewisham.
>
> However Lewisham/Greenwich - Canary Wharf DLR trains are rammed during
> the rush hour, not least with many passengers who are making such an
> interchange.
>
> Interchange to Crossrail at Abbey Wood would be an option for some of
> these passengers.
>
> Note that as well as London to Dartford stopping services, Abbey Wood
> is also served by Charing X to Gillingham (via Rochester and Chatham)
> trains. These do also stop at Lewisham, so interchange is indeed
> available with the overcrowded DLR there (note that these trains also
> stop at Woolwich Arsenal).
>
> However the South London RUS makes clear that Lewisham station is
> badly struggling to reliably handle the number of trains that
> currently stop there - if this service could be diverted away from
> Lewisham that would definitely be of very significant benefit.
> (Passengers would also have the option of changing to the DLR at
> Woolwich Arsenal for other Docklands destinations.)

Certainly off peak, the Gillingham trains these days seem to go via
Greenwich rather than Blackheath and Lewisham. Not sure about the rush
hour, though.

Robin
Mr Thant
2008-03-26 20:29:07 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Mar, 18:53, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
> the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
> exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
> already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
> that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

But if you're coming from Finchley or wherever, you can easily switch
from using the Jubilee at London Bridge to Crossrail at Moorgate. I
think the same applies to passengers coming from most places west of
Docklands.

> Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
> snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
> increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
> provided much more cheaply.

I don't disagree.

> Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
> capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible,
> although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to
> confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do
> we need more platforms?

Crossrail is expected to release significant capacity at Liverpool
Street for other services, even if its own route isn't seeing a big
increase. And there's quite a few more trains west of Paddington
planned, which would require platforms Paddington doesn't have.

> If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
> going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
> enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
> can abstract passengers away from the Central line.

Again, it depends where you're ultimately going. Yes Crossrail is
useless if your destination is actually on the Bakerloo and Victoria
(except Paddington of course), but if you're changing to some other
line than there's possibly a way to do the same journey using
Crossrail. Farringdon in particular is going to have direct trains to
places you might currently reach from Victoria or King's Cross, as
Thameslink 2000 will be complete.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London
Lüko Willms
2008-03-25 08:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:00:56 UTC, schrieb Dan G <***@gmail.com>
auf uk.railway :

> Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme?

I didn't. But I have some thoughts about this:

> *Why* is it costing> so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length
of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel
can be much more costly to build -- does make sense only when one
wants to see the cost of the tunnel as only the cost of boring it, by
meter or kilometer.

But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the
underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London
Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations,
which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l
box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations.
That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel
more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open
station in its middle.

Just my two cents...

Cheers,
L.W.
The Real Doctor
2008-03-25 09:05:05 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:

> But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the
> underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London
> Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations,
> which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l
> box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations.
> That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel
> more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open
> station in its middle.

I thought about the cost of stations - then remembered that the
Jubilee Line extension included four new underground stations,
interchanges with three existing underground stations (plus 2 new and
2 altered surface stations) and it /still/ only (sic) £3.5bn.

That's not just a bit less than Crossrail - that's one fifth of the
predicted Crossrail cost.

Remember, Crossrail = HS1 + Jubilee Line Extension + WCML upgrade.

Ian
Mr Thant
2008-03-25 09:43:58 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Mar, 09:05, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I thought about the cost of stations - then remembered that the
> Jubilee  Line extension included four new underground stations,
> interchanges with three existing underground stations (plus 2 new and
> 2 altered surface stations) and it /still/ only (sic) £3.5bn.
>
> That's not just a bit less than Crossrail - that's one fifth of the
> predicted Crossrail cost.

But Crossrail includes 8 underground stations, most with two entrances
(doubling many of the costs), the rebuilding of several miles of Great
Western Main Line including two grade-separated junctions (Heathrow
and Acton Yard), the electrification of 11 miles of GWML (requiring
the rebuilding of about ten bridges in Slough), rebuilding a of a fair
bit of GEML, rebuilding of ca. 30 stations (about half will be
completely demolished) and so on. It's a much larger project.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London
BH Williams
2008-03-25 10:27:23 UTC
Permalink
"Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-***@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de...
> Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:00:56 UTC, schrieb Dan G <***@gmail.com>
> auf uk.railway :
>
>> Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme?
>
> I didn't. But I have some thoughts about this:
>
>> *Why* is it costing> so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?
>
> Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length
> of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel
> can be much more costly to build -- does make sense only when one
> wants to see the cost of the tunnel as only the cost of boring it, by
> meter or kilometer.
>
> But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the
> underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London
> Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations,
> which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l
> box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations.
> That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel
> more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open
> station in its middle.
>
> Just my two cents...
>
> Cheers,
> L.W.
>
>
More to do with the very deep foundations of tall buildings in Central
London than utilities. In comparison, the tunnelling for CTRL2 and JLE were
relatively unimpeded by such constraints. The gradient profile should be
'interesting' as a result of this.
Brian
Roland Perry
2008-03-25 11:12:34 UTC
Permalink
In message
<czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-***@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>, at
09:47:14 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Lüko Willms <***@domain.invalid>
remarked:
> Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length
>of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel
>can be much more costly to build

Only a third of the Crossrail budget is building the tunnel.

And that tunnel is under random property and roads in Central London.

HS1 is largely built either in open countryside, or under an existing
railway line.
--
Roland Perry
Mizter T
2008-03-25 12:44:06 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Mar, 11:12, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message
> <czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-***@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>, at
> 09:47:14 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Lüko Willms <***@domain.invalid>
> remarked:
>
> > Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length
> >of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel
> >can be much more costly to build
>
> Only a third of the Crossrail budget is building the tunnel.
>
> And that tunnel is under random property and roads in Central London.
>
> HS1 is largely built either in open countryside, or under an existing
> railway line.


Quite - the CTRL tunnels rarely venture far away from being underneath
railway alignments that have been in existence for a long time, so
there were far fewer issues about underground utilities (sewers, cable
tunnels etc), building foundations etc and also a greater confidence
that there were not old hidden excavations.

Nevertheless there has been at least one problem caused to the
railways above by the CTRL tunnelling - a retaining wall next to the
North London Line at Dalston Junction had to be rebuilt. See the
bottom of this page for the reference:
http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/Broad_Street_line_2.html

In February 2003 there was also one very significant problem caused by
tunnelling away from railway lands in a residential street in central
Stratford where a great hole opened up in the back gardens of houses
on Lavender Street - the CTRL tunnelling seemingly disturbed a network
of old water wells...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2741307.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2742281.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/2984955.stm

Tunnelling might be far easier these days but it is certainly not
without its risks - and tunnelling underneath central London carries a
far greater risk.
Adrian
2008-03-26 18:54:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 26, 9:17 am, Mizter T <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 05:59, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 Mar, 22:15, Tony Polson <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dan G <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >On Mar 25, 1:37 pm, Tony Polson <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Dan G <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >I think the real rub of Crossrail is that for £16bn you could have
> > > >> >pretty much every other project one would want on the rest of the
> > > >> >English network -- Weald re-openings, East-West routes, lots of
> > > >> >electrification, old alignments and useful chords reopened, lots of
> > > >> >railfrieght interchanges etc. All that would benefit more people in
> > > >> >more places than Crossrail ever will.
>
> > > >> Complete tosh.
>
> > > >Please explain.
>
> > > No point lecturing to the deaf.
>
> > And that, Dan, is all you'll get, I'm afraid.
>
> Irritating, isn't it.
>
> I'm guessing that Mr Polson doesn't think £16bn would cover the cost
> of all these other projects, but as he hasn't deemed it necessary to
> clarify himself when asked politely

Behavior many of us are used to seeing. We have learned to ignore it.
Stimpy
2008-03-24 19:52:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote
>
> To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

*Whatever* the cost??
Adrian
2008-03-24 20:15:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 24, 12:52 pm, Stimpy <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote
>
>
>
> > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> *Whatever* the cost??

Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those
extortionately high UK taxes?
Stimpy
2008-03-24 20:35:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:15:07 +0000, Adrian wrote
>
>>> To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>>
>> *Whatever* the cost??
>
> Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those
> extortionately high UK taxes?

I can think of *many* things to spend my tax money on that would give me more
benefit than Crossrail.

Save £1bn on Crossrail and reopen the stations in Monmouth and Rhyader please
:-)
Adrian
2008-03-24 20:50:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 24, 1:35 pm, Stimpy <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:15:07 +0000, Adrian wrote
>
>
>
> >>> To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> >> *Whatever* the cost??
>
> > Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those
> > extortionately high UK taxes?
>
> I can think of *many* things to spend my tax money on that would give me more
> benefit than Crossrail.
>
> Save £1bn on Crossrail and reopen the stations in Monmouth and Rhyader please
> :-)

Reopen Monmouth, Rhydar and much of Wales' lost network AND build
Crossrail. The UK Treasury can afford it. BTW: I must express an
interest. My father and much of my ancestry is from Monmouthshire.
Indeed, my brother still maintains a home there, although he lives and
works in Alberta.

Adrian
The Real Doctor
2008-03-24 22:26:35 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Mar, 20:15, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 12:52 pm, Stimpy <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote
>
> > > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> > *Whatever* the cost??
>
> Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those
> extortionately high UK taxes?

The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
financial community
- by and large pay bugger all in taxes.

Ian
Adrian
2008-03-25 01:32:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 24, 3:26 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 24 Mar, 20:15, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 12:52 pm, Stimpy <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote
>
> > > > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> > > *Whatever* the cost??
>
> > Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those
> > extortionately high UK taxes?
>
> The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
> financial community
> - by and large pay bugger all in taxes.
>
> Ian

Their employees pay considerable taxes. And, many of them commute.
Jane Sullivan
2008-03-25 08:58:47 UTC
Permalink
In message
<b8371105-75f1-47d8-9c50-***@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Adrian <***@yahoo.com> writes
>On Mar 24, 3:26 pm, The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Mar, 20:15, Adrian <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 24, 12:52 pm, Stimpy <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote
>>
>> > > > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>>
>> > > *Whatever* the cost??
>>
>> > Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those
>> > extortionately high UK taxes?
>>
>> The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
>> financial community
>> - by and large pay bugger all in taxes.
>>
>> Ian
>
>Their employees pay considerable taxes. And, many of them commute.

And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several
billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by
extension, Britain.
--
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden
http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
Neil Williams
2008-03-25 09:54:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:58:47 +0000, Jane Sullivan
<***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several
>billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by
>extension, Britain.

But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen? The
existing lines are by and large adequate (if not always pleasant) for
getting everyone to their current jobs - if they weren't, they
wouldn't get there!

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Jane Sullivan
2008-03-25 12:24:50 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>, Neil Williams
<***@pacersplace.org.uk> writes
>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:58:47 +0000, Jane Sullivan
><***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several
>>billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by
>>extension, Britain.
>
>But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen?

They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
London to Frankfurt.

> The
>existing lines are by and large adequate (if not always pleasant) for
>getting everyone to their current jobs - if they weren't, they
>wouldn't get there!
>
>Neil
>

--
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden
http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
Chris Tolley
2008-03-25 15:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Jane Sullivan wrote:

> In message <***@news.individual.net>, Neil Williams
> <***@pacersplace.org.uk> writes
>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:58:47 +0000, Jane Sullivan
>><***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several
>>>billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by
>>>extension, Britain.
>>
>>But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen?
>
> They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
> London to Frankfurt.

Shurely, it's off to Delhi...
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683808.html
(155 345 at Halifax, 13 Oct 2000)
Mike Roebuck
2008-03-25 18:53:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:24:50 +0000, Jane Sullivan
<***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <***@news.individual.net>, Neil Williams
><***@pacersplace.org.uk> writes
>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:58:47 +0000, Jane Sullivan
>><***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several
>>>billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by
>>>extension, Britain.
>>
>>But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen?
>
>They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
>London to Frankfurt.

So - learn German and move to Frankfurt.

Lower cost of + higher standard of living for the sake of making a
little linguistic effort.
Lüko Willms
2008-03-25 20:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Am Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:53:51 UTC, schrieb Mike Roebuck
<***@privacy.net> auf uk.railway :

> >They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
> >London to Frankfurt.
>
> So - learn German and move to Frankfurt.

You don't need to speak German to work in many of the banks here.


Cheers,
L.W.
Miles Bader
2008-03-25 22:45:05 UTC
Permalink
"Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> writes:
>> So - learn German and move to Frankfurt.
>
> You don't need to speak German to work in many of the banks here.

My impression is that most educated Germans speak better English than I
do... :-/

[ The first time I went to Germany, I came out of the airport, and tried
to ask a question in German at a newsstand -- whereupon the newsagent
started yelling at me to "speak English!" :-O

It was kind of a relief to go to (former) East Germany (this was just
after unification) where I could practice speaking German without
risking ridicule... ]

-Miles

--
Opposition, n. In politics the party that prevents the Goverment from running
amok by hamstringing it.
Graeme Wall
2008-03-25 22:25:57 UTC
Permalink
In message <czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-***@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>
"Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:

> Am Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:53:51 UTC, schrieb Mike Roebuck
> <***@privacy.net> auf uk.railway :
>
> > >They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
> > >London to Frankfurt.
> >
> > So - learn German and move to Frankfurt.
>
> You don't need to speak German to work in many of the banks here.
>

But it would help for going shopping after work...

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Lüko Willms
2008-03-26 08:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Am Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:25:57 UTC, schrieb Graeme Wall
<***@greywall.demon.co.uk> auf uk.railway :

> > > So - learn German and move to Frankfurt.
> >
> > You don't need to speak German to work in many of the banks here.

> But it would help for going shopping after work...

Generally, you don't have to know the local language to buy
something, gestures of yes and no, indicating numbers by figures or
the amount of money would be enough.

And especially in a supermarket you don't talk to the shelves but
take what you want.

And speaking some other language than German might be an advantage
when the sales personnel originates from a country whose language you
master.


Cheers,
L.W.
Graeme Wall
2008-03-26 09:50:54 UTC
Permalink
In message <czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-***@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>
"Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:

> Am Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:25:57 UTC, schrieb Graeme Wall
> <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> auf uk.railway :
>
> > > > So - learn German and move to Frankfurt.
> > >
> > > You don't need to speak German to work in many of the banks here.
>
> > But it would help for going shopping after work...
>
> Generally, you don't have to know the local language to buy
> something, gestures of yes and no, indicating numbers by figures or
> the amount of money would be enough.
>
> And especially in a supermarket you don't talk to the shelves but
> take what you want.
>
> And speaking some other language than German might be an advantage
> when the sales personnel originates from a country whose language you
> master.
>

You don't have to take everything quite so literally...

As for your last paragraph, I speak rather less Turkish than German.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Lüko Willms
2008-03-26 10:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:50:54 UTC, schrieb Graeme Wall
<***@greywall.demon.co.uk> auf uk.railway :

> > And speaking some other language than German might be an advantage
> > when the sales personnel originates from a country whose language you
> > master.

> As for your last paragraph, I speak rather less Turkish than German.

Well, the salesperson might have migrated from Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
or India...

> You don't have to take everything quite so literally...

Don't take it personal. I like to tell what I think about
interesting subjects.

Have a nice day!


Cheers,
L.W.
Graeme Wall
2008-03-26 11:26:12 UTC
Permalink
In message <czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-***@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>
"Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:

> Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:50:54 UTC, schrieb Graeme Wall
> <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> auf uk.railway :
>
> > > And speaking some other language than German might be an advantage
> > > when the sales personnel originates from a country whose language you
> > > master.
>
> > As for your last paragraph, I speak rather less Turkish than German.
>
> Well, the salesperson might have migrated from Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
> or India...

If I put a smiley on the end, would it make it more obvious that I was
cracking a slight (very slight!) joke?

Perhaps I'd better leave out the line about not speaking Urdu.


--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
R.C. Payne
2008-03-26 14:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Graeme Wall wrote:
> In message <czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-***@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>
> "Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:50:54 UTC, schrieb Graeme Wall
>><***@greywall.demon.co.uk> auf uk.railway :
>>
>>>> And speaking some other language than German might be an advantage
>>>>when the sales personnel originates from a country whose language you
>>>>master.
>>
>>>As for your last paragraph, I speak rather less Turkish than German.
>> Well, the salesperson might have migrated from Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
>>or India...
>
> If I put a smiley on the end, would it make it more obvious that I was
> cracking a slight (very slight!) joke?

You know what they say about the German sense of humour...

Robin
Graeme Wall
2008-03-26 15:19:34 UTC
Permalink
In message <fsdo58$1mh$***@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
"R.C. Payne" <***@nospam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Graeme Wall wrote:
> > In message <czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-***@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>
> > "Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:50:54 UTC, schrieb Graeme Wall
> >><***@greywall.demon.co.uk> auf uk.railway :
> >>
> >>>> And speaking some other language than German might be an advantage
> >>>>when the sales personnel originates from a country whose language you
> >>>>master.
> >>
> >>>As for your last paragraph, I speak rather less Turkish than German.
> >> Well, the salesperson might have migrated from Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
> >>or India...
> >
> > If I put a smiley on the end, would it make it more obvious that I was
> > cracking a slight (very slight!) joke?
>
> You know what they say about the German sense of humour...
>

Not true IME, not even the Prussians who are renowned for not having one. It
can tend towards the practical joke end of the spectrum.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
John B
2008-03-26 11:13:09 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Mar, 11:50, Graeme Wall <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Generally, you don't have to know the local language to buy
> > something, gestures of yes and no, indicating numbers by figures or
> > the amount of money would be enough.
>
> > And especially in a supermarket you don't talk to the shelves but
> > take what you want.
>
> > And speaking some other language than German might be an advantage
> > when the sales personnel originates from a country whose language you
> > master.
>
> You don't have to take everything quite so literally...
>
> As for your last paragraph, I speak rather less Turkish than German.

Oddly enough, I've just successfully purchased six months' supply of
contact lenses [at 1/3 of UK opticians' prices for the same brand made
in the same US factory. Can we wind up that cartel next please?], some
groceries and toiletries, and a toasted sandwich - all from people who
speak Turkish and no English.

I'm in Istanbul rather than Frankfurt though

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Tom Anderson
2008-03-26 18:43:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, John B wrote:

> On 26 Mar, 11:50, Graeme Wall <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Generally, you don't have to know the local language to buy something,
>>> gestures of yes and no, indicating numbers by figures or the amount of
>>> money would be enough.
>>>
>>> And speaking some other language than German might be an advantage
>>> when the sales personnel originates from a country whose language you
>>> master.
>>
>> As for your last paragraph, I speak rather less Turkish than German.
>
> Oddly enough, I've just successfully purchased six months' supply of
> contact lenses [at 1/3 of UK opticians' prices for the same brand made
> in the same US factory. Can we wind up that cartel next please?], some
> groceries and toiletries, and a toasted sandwich - all from people who
> speak Turkish and no English.

What was in the sandwich?

tom

--
GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music
both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK
John B
2008-03-26 19:32:49 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Mar, 20:43, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> > Oddly enough, I've just successfully purchased six months' supply of
> > contact lenses [at 1/3 of UK opticians' prices for the same brand made
> > in the same US factory. Can we wind up that cartel next please?], some
> > groceries and toiletries, and a toasted sandwich - all from people who
> > speak Turkish and no English.
>
> What was in the sandwich?

Indeterminate meat.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Graeme Wall
2008-03-26 19:51:24 UTC
Permalink
In message <6a11de43-a91f-40dd-a046-***@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
John B <***@johnband.org> wrote:

> On 26 Mar, 20:43, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> > > Oddly enough, I've just successfully purchased six months' supply of
> > > contact lenses [at 1/3 of UK opticians' prices for the same brand made
> > > in the same US factory. Can we wind up that cartel next please?], some
> > > groceries and toiletries, and a toasted sandwich - all from people who
> > > speak Turkish and no English.
> >
> > What was in the sandwich?
>
> Indeterminate meat.
>

Meat from a named animal costs extra I suppose.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Martin Edwards
2008-03-26 10:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Mike Roebuck wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:24:50 +0000, Jane Sullivan
> <***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <***@news.individual.net>, Neil Williams
>> <***@pacersplace.org.uk> writes
>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:58:47 +0000, Jane Sullivan
>>> <***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several
>>>> billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by
>>>> extension, Britain.
>>> But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen?
>> They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
>> London to Frankfurt.
>
> So - learn German and move to Frankfurt.
>
> Lower cost of + higher standard of living for the sake of making a
> little linguistic effort.
>
You'd need to learn German and then learn Rhineland German.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
Mike Roebuck
2008-03-26 20:16:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:58:46 GMT, Martin Edwards
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Mike Roebuck wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:24:50 +0000, Jane Sullivan
>> <***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <***@news.individual.net>, Neil Williams
>>> <***@pacersplace.org.uk> writes
>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:58:47 +0000, Jane Sullivan
>>>> <***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several
>>>>> billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by
>>>>> extension, Britain.
>>>> But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen?
>>> They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
>>> London to Frankfurt.
>>
>> So - learn German and move to Frankfurt.
>>
>> Lower cost of + higher standard of living for the sake of making a
>> little linguistic effort.
>>
>You'd need to learn German and then learn Rhineland German.

No - my German is fluent, and I learned it mostly in Hamburg. I never
needed to learn Hessisch as well to communicate when I was in
Frankfurt-am-Main.
Lüko Willms
2008-03-27 05:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:16:55 UTC, schrieb Mike Roebuck
<***@privacy.net> auf uk.railway :

> >> So - learn German and move to Frankfurt.

> >You'd need to learn German and then learn Rhineland German.
>
> No - my German is fluent, and I learned it mostly in Hamburg. I never
> needed to learn Hessisch as well to communicate when I was in
> Frankfurt-am-Main.

Neither did I after living for more than three decades here. And it
is really not needed. More than a quarter of the city's population is
of foreign descent, and among young people this percentage is even
higher.


Cheers,
L.W.
Neil Williams
2008-03-25 19:57:36 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:24:50 +0000, Jane Sullivan
<***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen?
>
>They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
>London to Frankfurt.

That they might. But I fail to see why that would happen purely on
account of the construction or otherwise of a single railway line.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Peter Masson
2008-03-25 20:15:35 UTC
Permalink
"Neil Williams" <***@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:***@news.individual.net...
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:24:50 +0000, Jane Sullivan
> <***@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen?
> >
> >They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
> >London to Frankfurt.
>
> That they might. But I fail to see why that would happen purely on
> account of the construction or otherwise of a single railway line.
>
or even on the construction or otherwise of another airport runway.

peter
Lüko Willms
2008-03-25 08:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor
<***@btinternet.com> auf uk.railway :

> The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
> financial community

I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than
just the "financial community".

It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_
London.


Cheers,
L.W.
The Real Doctor
2008-03-25 09:07:25 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor
> <***@btinternet.com> auf uk.railway :
>
> > The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
> > financial community
>
> I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than
> just the "financial community".
>
> It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_
> London.

Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But
it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance
travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will
still have to change twice, just as now.

Ian
Grumpy Old Man
2008-03-25 09:53:11 UTC
Permalink
The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor
> > <***@btinternet.com> auf uk.railway :
> >
> > > The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
> > > financial community
> >
> > I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than
> > just the "financial community".
> >
> > It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_
> > London.
>
> Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But
> it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance
> travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will
> still have to change twice, just as now.
>
> Ian

All the more reason to pull the plug. Thameslink, by contrast, will accommodate
long-distance services, will it not ?
Paul Scott
2008-03-25 11:14:39 UTC
Permalink
"Grumpy Old Man" <***@i.do.not.believe.it> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> > Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor
>> > <***@btinternet.com> auf uk.railway :
>> >
>> > > The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
>> > > financial community
>> >
>> > I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than
>> > just the "financial community".
>> >
>> > It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_
>> > London.
>>
>> Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But
>> it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance
>> travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will
>> still have to change twice, just as now.
>>
>> Ian
>
> All the more reason to pull the plug. Thameslink, by contrast, will
> accommodate
> long-distance services, will it not ?

Depends if you consider Brighton - Bedford or Peterborough long - distance,
but they are still going to use basically high capacity commuter trains. In
terms of gauge, there appears little reason why an electric train couldn't
run Bristol - Norwich in the future (at least off peak when the service is
lighter), but like Thameslink the central section services will require high
frequency all stations stoppers at, so they will almost certainly decide
against it for reliability of timetabling.

Paul
Grumpy Old Man
2008-03-25 11:28:21 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Scott" <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> "Grumpy Old Man" <***@i.do.not.believe.it> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
> > The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >> > Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor
> >> > <***@btinternet.com> auf uk.railway :
> >> >
> >> > > The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
> >> > > financial community
> >> >
> >> > I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than
> >> > just the "financial community".
> >> >
> >> > It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_
> >> > London.
> >>
> >> Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But
> >> it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance
> >> travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will
> >> still have to change twice, just as now.
> >>
> >> Ian
> >
> > All the more reason to pull the plug. Thameslink, by contrast, will
> > accommodate
> > long-distance services, will it not ?
>
> Depends if you consider Brighton - Bedford or Peterborough long - distance,
> but they are still going to use basically high capacity commuter trains. In
> terms of gauge, there appears little reason why an electric train couldn't
> run Bristol - Norwich in the future (at least off peak when the service is
> lighter), but like Thameslink the central section services will require high
> frequency all stations stoppers at, so they will almost certainly decide
> against it for reliability of timetabling.
>
> Paul

Well the Thameslink services you mention look longer than is currently proposed
for Crossrail. I agree with you, services such as Norwich to Bristol would make
better use of Crossrail than allowing it to be hogged mainly for travel within
the M25 area.
u***@gmail.com
2008-03-25 11:34:43 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Mar, 11:28, "Grumpy Old Man" <***@i.do.not.believe.it>
wrote:
> "Paul Scott" <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Grumpy Old Man" <***@i.do.not.believe.it> wrote in message
> >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >> On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > >> > Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC,  schrieb The Real Doctor
> > >> > <***@btinternet.com>  auf uk.railway :
>
> > >> > > The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
> > >> > > financial community
>
> > >> >   I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than
> > >> > just the "financial community".
>
> > >> >   It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_
> > >> > London.
>
> > >> Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But
> > >> it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance
> > >> travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will
> > >> still have to change twice, just as now.
>
> > >> Ian
>
> > > All the more reason to pull the plug.  Thameslink, by contrast, will
> > > accommodate
> > > long-distance services, will it not ?
>
> > Depends if you consider Brighton - Bedford or Peterborough long - distance,
> > but they are still going to use basically high capacity commuter trains. In
> > terms of gauge, there appears little reason why an electric train couldn't
> > run Bristol - Norwich in the future (at least off peak when the service is
> > lighter), but like Thameslink the central section services will require high
> > frequency all stations stoppers at, so they will almost certainly decide
> > against it for reliability of timetabling.
>
> > Paul
>
> Well the Thameslink services you mention look longer than is currently proposed
> for Crossrail.  I agree with you, services such as Norwich to Bristol would make
> better use of Crossrail than allowing it to be hogged mainly for travel within
> the M25 area.- Hide quoted text -
>

I honestly can't see why. How many people want to make that journey?
I'll guess it's far fewer than want to travel within London.

The ideal, of course, would be a four track line, allowing fast trains
and stoppers to run on different tracks. But if they have to choose
one, it should be the heavily used suburban services every time.
Grumpy Old Man
2008-03-25 16:39:16 UTC
Permalink
***@gmail.com wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 11:28, "Grumpy Old Man" <***@i.do.not.believe.it>
> wrote:
> > "Paul Scott" <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Grumpy Old Man" <***@i.do.not.believe.it> wrote in message
> > >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > The Real Doctor <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > > >> > Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:26:35 UTC,  schrieb The Real Doctor
> > > >> > <***@btinternet.com>  auf uk.railway :
> >
> > > >> > > The people Crossrail is supposed to benefit - the international
> > > >> > > financial community
> >
> > > >> >   I think that London Crossrail will benefit much more people than
> > > >> > just the "financial community".
> >
> > > >> >   It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_
> > > >> > London.
> >
> > > >> Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains. But
> > > >> it's not - just stoppers from Maidenhead to Shenfield. Long distance
> > > >> travellers (Bristol - Norwich?) wanting to travel across London will
> > > >> still have to change twice, just as now.
> >
> > > >> Ian
> >
> > > > All the more reason to pull the plug.  Thameslink, by contrast, will
> > > > accommodate
> > > > long-distance services, will it not ?
> >
> > > Depends if you consider Brighton - Bedford or Peterborough long - distance,
> > > but they are still going to use basically high capacity commuter trains. In
> > > terms of gauge, there appears little reason why an electric train couldn't
> > > run Bristol - Norwich in the future (at least off peak when the service is
> > > lighter), but like Thameslink the central section services will require high
> > > frequency all stations stoppers at, so they will almost certainly decide
> > > against it for reliability of timetabling.
> >
> > > Paul
> >
> > Well the Thameslink services you mention look longer than is currently proposed
> > for Crossrail.  I agree with you, services such as Norwich to Bristol would make
> > better use of Crossrail than allowing it to be hogged mainly for travel within
> > the M25 area.- Hide quoted text -
> >
>
> I honestly can't see why. How many people want to make that journey?
> I'll guess it's far fewer than want to travel within London.

I'm not suggesting that these longer distance services would miss out stops
within the London area. The M25 is full of drivers travelling from one side of
the "home counties" to the other, which are currently horrendously awful by rail
because of all necessity of inter-terminus transfer in London.

>
> The ideal, of course, would be a four track line, allowing fast trains
> and stoppers to run on different tracks. But if they have to choose
> one, it should be the heavily used suburban services every time.

Pigs might fly..
Lüko Willms
2008-03-25 09:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Am Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:07:25 UTC, schrieb The Real Doctor
<***@btinternet.com> auf uk.railway :

> > It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_
> > London.
>
> Well, it would be if it was designed to take long distance trains.

I did not think about that, but rather about someone lifing e.g. in
Romford and looking for a job at the Heathrow airport. Or similar
setups.

Have a look at the RER network in and around Paris.


Cheers,
L.W.
Ar
2008-03-25 12:05:43 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:35:40 -0700, Adrian wrote:

> A much more common mistake is the misuse of the word "prestigious".
>
> To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential? Is that any
less bankrupting then Crossrail?

Red Ken Livingstone lives in another planet, or should I say, inside a
bottle of Whisky?!
thoss
2008-03-25 12:56:10 UTC
Permalink
At 12:05:43 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 Ar opined:-

>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:35:40 -0700, Adrian wrote:
>
>> A much more common mistake is the misuse of the word "prestigious".
>>
>> To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
>The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential? Is that any
>less bankrupting then Crossrail?
>

It's not often recognised that London suffered two devastating blows on
successive days in July 2005. On the 7th there was the tube bombings.
But the day before London had imposed on it the 2012 Olympics.
--
Thoss
Mizter T
2008-03-25 13:05:42 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Mar, 12:56, thoss <***@amolad.org.uk> wrote:

> At 12:05:43 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 Ar opined:-
>
> >On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:35:40 -0700, Adrian wrote:
>
> >> A much more common mistake is the misuse of the word "prestigious".
>
> >> To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> >The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential? Is that any
> >less bankrupting then Crossrail?
>
> It's not often recognised that London suffered two devastating blows on
> successive days in July 2005. On the 7th there was the tube bombings.
> But the day before London had imposed on it the 2012 Olympics.
> --
> Thoss

Oh you must be so pleased with yourself, what with your being ever so
witty...
Grumpy Old Man
2008-03-25 16:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Ar <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:35:40 -0700, Adrian wrote:
>
> > A much more common mistake is the misuse of the word "prestigious".
> >
> > To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
>
> The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential? Is that any
> less bankrupting then Crossrail?

An utter waste of money.

>
> Red Ken Livingstone lives in another planet, or should I say, inside a
> bottle of Whisky?!

Many wish he did.
Roland Perry
2008-03-25 16:59:55 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>, at 16:36:51 on
Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Grumpy Old Man <***@i.do.not.believe.it>
remarked:
>> The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?

Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn

>>Is that any
>> less bankrupting then Crossrail?
>
>An utter waste of money.

And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
are.
--
Roland Perry
Mizter T
2008-03-25 17:47:51 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Mar, 16:59, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <***@4ax.com>, at 16:36:51 on
> Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Grumpy Old Man <***@i.do.not.believe.it>
> remarked:
>
> >> The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?
>
> Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn

The total cost to the public purse is currently estimated at £9.325bn.

Source- DCMS December 2007 press release:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Press_notices/archive_2007/dcms_TJ-odabaselinebudget_10dec07.htm
or via <http://tinyurl.com/3bp5dm>

>
> >>Is that any
> >> less bankrupting then Crossrail?
>
> >An utter waste of money.
>
> And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
> are.


Depends upon how you measure the various benefits of course, and the
difficulty of quantifying them in monetary terms.

I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
in a great many different ways.
Roland Perry
2008-03-25 18:04:19 UTC
Permalink
In message
<124c9507-1aae-4c46-b2ea-***@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, at
10:47:51 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mizter T <***@gmail.com> remarked:

>> >> The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?
>>
>> Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn
>
>The total cost to the public purse is currently estimated at £9.325bn.

Of which 4.8bn is for the infrastructure, and only 6Bn is directly
attributable to the ODA. So where does the £18Bn come from??

>Source- DCMS December 2007 press release:
>http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Press_notices/archive_2007/d
>cms_TJ-odabaselinebudget_10dec07.htm
>or via <http://tinyurl.com/3bp5dm>
>
>>
>> >>Is that any
>> >> less bankrupting then Crossrail?
>>
>> >An utter waste of money.
>>
>> And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
>> are.
>
>Depends upon how you measure the various benefits of course, and the
>difficulty of quantifying them in monetary terms.

They aren't going to bulldoze the stadiums and village, or undo the
public transport improvements. And some money will come from ticket
sales and TV rights, and the slightly less quantifiable "tourism"
aspect.

>I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
>in a great many different ways.

I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could
have walked to the venue!
--
Roland Perry
Tom Anderson
2008-03-25 23:23:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message
> <124c9507-1aae-4c46-b2ea-***@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, at
> 10:47:51 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mizter T <***@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
>> in a great many different ways.
>
> I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could have
> walked to the venue!

Yeah, well Nottingham didn't win the Olympic competition, did it, London
did!

As a compromise, i propose the rowing be held ing Mottingham. They can do
it on the lake in the nature reserve:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=51.440447,0.053344&ie=UTF8&ll=51.440447,0.053344&spn=0.004006,0.008669&t=k&z=17

It'll be a pretty tactical course, that.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born
Roland Perry
2008-03-26 16:41:27 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@urchin.earth.li>, at
23:23:42 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li>
remarked:
>>> I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
>>> in a great many different ways.
>>
>> I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could
>>have walked to the venue!
>
>Yeah, well Nottingham didn't win the Olympic competition, did it,
>London did!

Neither did Weymouth, but that's where the sailing is going to be.

Seems odd to decide to build a brand new rowing lake in the congested
London suburbs when we already have an Olympic sized one (and the
National Centre) at Nottingham.
--
Roland Perry
Paul Terry
2008-03-26 17:16:42 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<***@perry.co.uk> writes

>Seems odd to decide to build a brand new rowing lake in the congested
>London suburbs when we already have an Olympic sized one (and the
>National Centre) at Nottingham.

Its hardly brand new - Eton's rowing lake opened some years ago and
hosted the 2006 World Rowing Championships, as I recall.
--
Paul Terry
Roland Perry
2008-03-26 17:44:48 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@main.machine>, at 17:16:42 on Wed, 26 Mar
2008, Paul Terry <***@musonix.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>Seems odd to decide to build a brand new rowing lake in the congested
>>London suburbs when we already have an Olympic sized one (and the
>>National Centre) at Nottingham.
>
>Its hardly brand new - Eton's rowing lake opened some years ago and
>hosted the 2006 World Rowing Championships, as I recall.

Fair enough. I was sure they were building a new lake near Slough. I
must have misheard.
--
Roland Perry
Tom Anderson
2008-03-26 18:44:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <***@urchin.earth.li>, at 23:23:42 on
> Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> remarked:
>
>>>> I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
>>>> in a great many different ways.
>>>
>>> I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could have
>>> walked to the venue!
>>
>> Yeah, well Nottingham didn't win the Olympic competition, did it, London
>> did!
>
> Neither did Weymouth, but that's where the sailing is going to be.

Yes, and i'm still annoyed about that. What exactly is wrong with the
Thames estuary, i ask?

Apart from the ships.

tom

--
GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music
both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK
dave hill
2008-03-26 16:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote
>I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could
>have walked to the venue!

I was under the impression that the Row course at Holme Point(?) was
not up to standard and a NEW facility needed to be brought into
use.
I think its to do with the average wind speed over the course being in
the main more than that allowed.
I could be talking a load of old ******
--
dave hill
Roland Perry
2008-03-26 16:42:05 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@davemichaelh.demon.co.uk>, at 16:09:41 on
Wed, 26 Mar 2008, dave hill <***@davemh.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could
>>have walked to the venue!
>
>I was under the impression that the Row course at Holme Point(?) was
>not up to standard and a NEW facility needed to be brought into
>use.

MRD applies.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2008-03-25 18:14:10 UTC
Permalink
In message <124c9507-1aae-4c46-b2ea-***@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Mizter T <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 25 Mar, 16:59, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message <***@4ax.com>, at 16:36:51 on
> > Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Grumpy Old Man <***@i.do.not.believe.it>
> > remarked:
> >
> > >> The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?
> >
> > Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn
>
> The total cost to the public purse is currently estimated at £9.325bn.
>
> Source- DCMS December 2007 press release:
> http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Press_notices/archive_2007/dcms_TJ-odabaselinebudget_10dec07.htm
> or via <http://tinyurl.com/3bp5dm>
>
> >
> > >>Is that any
> > >> less bankrupting then Crossrail?
> >
> > >An utter waste of money.
> >
> > And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
> > are.
>
>
> Depends upon how you measure the various benefits of course, and the
> difficulty of quantifying them in monetary terms.
>
> I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
> in a great many different ways.

Well it will certainly help the pharmaceutical industry and the modern
equivalents of CMOT Dibbler but I'm not sure what good a celebration of
cheating and corruption is going to do.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Tom Anderson
2008-03-25 23:27:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mizter T wrote:

> I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
> in a great many different ways.

Great! You can pay my council tax bill, then.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born
Mizter T
2008-03-26 00:26:24 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Mar, 23:27, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mizter T wrote:
> > I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
> > in a great many different ways.
>
> Great! You can pay my council tax bill, then.
>

What is it, like an extra £20 a year on the London council tax.
Paul Terry
2008-03-26 07:46:01 UTC
Permalink
In message
<96504bb5-b532-4803-b030-***@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Mizter T <***@gmail.com> writes

>What is it, like an extra £20 a year on the London council tax.

It depends what council tax band your house is in. For my small terraced
house it's almost £29 a year ... for the next ten years. :(

Every Olympic bid trumpets the supposed benefits of hosting the games,
but these benefits are very rarely realised. Barcelona was one of the
few exceptions, although even they have seen less tourist growth than
comparable cities that didn't host the Olympics. But Barcelona is
certainly a much better looking city than it was before the games.

I think the London games stand a better chance of delivering benefits
than most, but I suspect it will represent a very poor return on the
huge amount of money invested.
--
Paul Terry
Arthur Figgis
2008-03-26 08:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Mizter T wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 23:27, Tom Anderson <***@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mizter T wrote:
>>> I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
>>> in a great many different ways.
>> Great! You can pay my council tax bill, then.
>>
>
> What is it, like an extra £20 a year on the London council tax.

If that is not much, you can pay mine too!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Martin D. Pay
2008-03-25 21:23:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:59:55 +0000, Roland Perry
<***@perry.co.uk> mangled uncounted electrons thus:

>In message <***@4ax.com>, at 16:36:51 on
>Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Grumpy Old Man <***@i.do.not.believe.it>
>remarked:
>>> The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?
>
>Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn
>
>>>Is that any
>>> less bankrupting then Crossrail?
>>
>>An utter waste of money.
>
>And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
>are.

The good citizens of Montreal were paying a special tax to meet
the cost of the games (held in 1976) until 2006, so a friend who
lives out there tells me...

Martin D. Pay
Holding the Olympics is a ridiculous luxury that we simply don't
need. IMO, of course...
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...