AHC: Create the most expansive and all-encompassing London Underground network.

FDW

Banned
Thanks for that, glad to help.

As to the Cross River and City tram scheme, the problem is both failed cost-benefit and by quite some way. Now you could argue that C-B is an inefficient tool that doesn't capture all the benefits, I know TfL tried to make that argument under Ken Livingston when they were going tram mad, but there are two problems;

1. What are you going to use instead of C-B? Resources are limited so how are you going to pick which scheme to use beyond saying 'We really, really want to do this' and relying on subjective value judgements. TfL never really answered that and the DoT and Treasury were entirely unconvinced, hence why TfL went back to using C-B

2. If you get a new method that catches more benefits surely you have to re-analyse all the other schemes as well? Dragging the tram scheme up to a C-B of say 1:1.5, just about a good idea, is no use at all if the same method proves that an equivalent DLR extension or rail improvement has a C-B of 1:3. The DoT and Treasury, who ultimately would end up paying for it, would insist you use the better option.

Once again we come back to a central point; Britain abandoned her historic tram networks for a good reason - outside tourist attractions trams are rubbish.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that.
 
Wow!

Two pages!!!

I'm surprised at El Pip's reaction that 'trams are rubbish.' I'm no engineer, but I see them as being a rather effective way of getting around - particuarly if the factors outlined previously regarded tickets, manning etc. on the Underground remain unaddressed.

One thing that did strike me as a cool idea - if not necessarily practical, affordable or even desirable - was a monorail network in Central London. I know that the DLR is sorta' like a monorail, but for the Bank --> Victoria proposal it'd be underground, so...

What do the experts have to say on this? If it IS feasible, (which I doubt), where might it run, how much might it cost etc. etc. etc? An elevated rail system could also be considered - or an paradoxically described Elevated Underground!

Thanks for all the support, chaps - it's all going into my research for a TL that I'm planning to never get round to write! :eek:

N.B: As a bonus question and purely out of interest, what do you all think of the proposed HS2?
 
Once again we come back to a central point; Britain abandoned her historic tram networks for a good reason - outside tourist attractions trams are rubbish.

I agree with you on Cost-Benefit analysis and generally agree with you on trams being not ideal but if you look at Melbourne tram networks can be effective. That said when you have as good an underground system as London has spending money on a 2nd rate option that is different from the rest of the system and thus can never be properly integrated is just dumb.
 

Devvy

Donor
Wow!

Two pages!!!

I'm surprised at El Pip's reaction that 'trams are rubbish.' I'm no engineer, but I see them as being a rather effective way of getting around - particuarly if the factors outlined previously regarded tickets, manning etc. on the Underground remain unaddressed.

One thing that did strike me as a cool idea - if not necessarily practical, affordable or even desirable - was a monorail network in Central London. I know that the DLR is sorta' like a monorail, but for the Bank --> Victoria proposal it'd be underground, so...

What do the experts have to say on this? If it IS feasible, (which I doubt), where might it run, how much might it cost etc. etc. etc? An elevated rail system could also be considered - or an paradoxically described Elevated Underground!

Thanks for all the support, chaps - it's all going into my research for a TL that I'm planning to never get round to write! :eek:

N.B: As a bonus question and purely out of interest, what do you all think of the proposed HS2?

Given that London is a tourist hotspot, I think a monorail system above the streets would destroy part of the "touristability" if you know what I mean. London is seen as an olden city, with charming narrow streets and grandiose old buildings. Having a modern monorail whisk past you kind of destroys that notion.

Ironically, at Whitechapel station, the London Underground line actually passes over the top of the London Overground line :)

As for HS2, I'm pretty much in favour of it. The WCML line is nearly full, signalling upgrades won't help that as anti-HS2 groups have advocated. I have qualms over individual parts of the proposed system, but overall I think it's a good idea. Affordability at the moment is a reasonable question, as it trying to get them to protect the environment as much as possible through the Chilterns.

Having said that, I'd be happy if they would invest money in opening some of the disused lines back up for public use, as per ATOC's plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecting_Communities:_Expanding_Access_to_the_Rail_Network)
 
This is RATP which is subsidised to a colossal degree (last I saw it was 1 Euro subsidy per 1 Euro of fares), has all it's capital expenditure paid for by the government and can issue cheap bonds (ones implicitly backed by the French state no less) to cover any operational losses, something it has done with vigour to the point it has ~5 Billion Euro in bonds outstanding, all of which went covering annual deficits and none on new works or extensions.

On that basis I'll confess I'm not wildly impressed with RATP, if Britain had hosed TfL with that much money I'm sure they would have achieved more as well. Indeed given the debts RATP has racked up over the years despite all this largess I'm not convinced it's that well run and damned certain they can't do sums properly either.

What amount of subsidy the RATP gets is a matter of debate, but don't forget that a special tax existis in Greater Paris whereby between 1.7% and 2.6% of the wages by employers of more than nine people, are going into a pit to be invested in public transports capital projects.

The RATP has not been in deficit for years now, mainly of course because of the subsidy provided by the afromentionned tax. It still plays a part into funding its capital projects as well, though it varies depending on the projects themselves. Their track record if things like introduction new rolling stock and refurbishing existing one (usually in house) is very good and delays have been rather rare.

Unlike London as well it is extremely rare to see swathes of the network being closed on weekends for engineering works. The last big engineering works done by the RATP where the ballast renewall in all the metro lines. It lasted twenty years from 1988 to 2006 and it was done during overnight posessions. The guys working on it (in house folks) worked well and efficiently so much that they were ahead of their own schedule sometimes.

The problems facing the RATP and which have a huge impacts of costs are related to staffing costs and the lavish advantages that the staff gets. These are namely retirementat 55 years old for certain members of staff including drivers. A very low productivity of operational staff especially drivers (not uncommon for drivers to spend only four hours on a train on the RER). The favourable pension regime also drags the company down, but this is a problem which the French state itself will have to solve one day.

With productivity reforms and a reform of the French pension system (that's a very pious wish there) coupled with some increase in traffic. The farebox recovery ratio could very well reach 70% in Paris and that's including the hugely inefficient bus network where fraud is ripe. Take only the métro and RATP owned RER and I bet it would be over 100%. To be fair I think that it is probably close to that number for the métro and RATP RER alone already. Its the buses which are dragging profitability down.


Once again we come back to a central point; Britain abandoned her historic tram networks for a good reason - outside tourist attractions trams are rubbish.

I am inclined to agree since historical tram networks were ill adapated for mass usage with on street running, crappy rolling stock.



Regarding HS2 I have my mind clear on the 12:08 topic. I am in favour of it but I think that the proposed linespeeds are excessive and that the scheme should include extra stations and be far more integrated with the existing network than it already is, this is mainly in order to maximise the overall use of the line.

What saddens me on HS2 is that a lot of the costs have to do with very British bureaucracy things and with far too much time spent on consultation, public enquiries and haggling over compulsory purchases.
Frankly considering the poor state of Britain's infrastructure at the moment, a lot of this should be scrapped in my opinion and a policy of favouring the general interest over local ones adopted.
 
The RATP has not been in deficit for years now, mainly of course because of the subsidy provided by the afromentionned tax.
And yet their total outstanding borrowings increases year by year. I'm sure they can claim an "operating" profit, but then if you play silly buggers with the accounts you can hide maintenance in capital expenditure and make the figures do anything.

Simple fact is every year they spend more than they get in and have to borrow ever increasing sums of money to cover the difference. I could only find the 2010 accounts but that indicated net borrowings of just under 5 Billion and that another 500 million in debt was taken on in 2010 alone.

They also make clear that fares make up barely 50% of revenue, the rest is subsidy (doesn't matter if it's a special tax or a general tax, still a subsidy). So no way on earth are they going to cover their costs without massive ticket price hikes. And as their vast debts have been free loading off France's now vanished AAA rating they'll have to do something as racking up ever larger debts may not be an option going forward.

At this point I should compare it to TfL, sadly Crossrail is technically a subsidiary of Transport for London which is somewhat distorting the 2011 and 2010 figures, there is also the cost of buying out Tube Lines in there somewhere, so frankly it's really not clear what's going on.
 
I'm surprised at El Pip's reaction that 'trams are rubbish.' I'm no engineer, but I see them as being a rather effective way of getting around - particuarly if the factors outlined previously regarded tickets, manning etc. on the Underground remain unaddressed.

One thing that did strike me as a cool idea - if not necessarily practical, affordable or even desirable - was a monorail network in Central London. I know that the DLR is sorta' like a monorail, but for the Bank --> Victoria proposal it'd be underground, so...

What do the experts have to say on this? If it IS feasible, (which I doubt), where might it run, how much might it cost etc. etc. etc? An elevated rail system could also be considered - or an paradoxically described Elevated Underground!
A central london monorail. I think we may well have found something worse than trams! :D

Anyway trams, the big problem with them is that they waste valuable road space (if a tram isn't on roads it become a light rail scheme). That's what always kills them, even if you can make the costs work, which is damned hard, once you add up the losses from losing all that road space the scheme looks awful. Now you could just build a dedicated tram line, but at that point (1) it's not a tram anymore as per above and (2) why not build the track to heavy rail standards and have a proper train service?

Or just admit you are making drivers lives more difficult and think they should have longer journeys and pay more taxes to support a tram service that odds on doesn't take them where they need to go (based on most UK tram scheme passenger numbers).

However I think you may find that a hard sell in a democracy, it would probably need Dunois dictatorial approach to planning to make it work. The state just telling people that planning law and property rights can be suspended as they are inconvenient. ;)
 
I approve of this, as long as it isn't my property ;)
Not sure if you read the ECML report from the 12:08 thread, but one of the outstanding actions on the BR Property Board was;

"Convince Mrs O'Connor at Morpeth that the new FB72 is legal and will stay built."

A quick Google indicates she pops up in quite a few progress reports as she really wasn't keen on the footbridge nearby being rebuilt and kept sending letters to BR asking (then telling) them to demolish it/rebuild it/make it go away she was convinced it was illegal.

I must say I really like the idea of one person being so persistent that they make it into a series of high level reports written for the BR board and the secretary of state. And as the work appeared to carry on regardless, bar the poor soul who had to keep replying to all her letters, it wasn't even a major disruption. :D
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
The problem with tram schemes in this country in addition to the spirraling costs (something with politicians will have to solve by making very though decisions), is that they usually always end up creating spaghetti like messes like the Croydon Tramlink.

In order for lines to be easy to use you need one terminus on each side and not sprawling branches and loops in the middle of the line for no reason whatsoever.

In defence of Tramlink it provides what National railway does not: east-west lines of communication in south London.

Croydon to Wimbledon in under 30 minutes when a car journey at peak time would be nearer 90. By overground train this would involve journeys to Sutton or Clapham Junction & change. Even more important are the links out to the east of Croydon. Try an overground route from Elmers End or Beckenham Junction to East Croydon. And New Addington has a direct link to Croydon, although who in their right mind would want to undertake a return journey beats me!

There are talks of expanding the route up to Crystal Palace, which makes sense, and south to Purley & Coulsdon [note my name] which do not as these are served by the excellent north-south national rail lines. With the integration of what was the East London line into London Overground you can now travel from West Croydon or Crystal Palace to Highbury & Islington - great for a curry in Brick Lane.
 
However I think you may find that a hard sell in a democracy, it would probably need Dunois dictatorial approach to planning to make it work. The state just telling people that planning law and property rights can be suspended as they are inconvenient. ;)

Eh you said yourself earlier on in the 12:08 thread that if we wanted to reduce costs, the politicians would have to make tough and potentially unpalatable decisions.

A few decades ago it was possible for major projects to be implemented in years instead of decades. We can only look back to the construction of the London underground itself to see this, the motorways projects of the sixties and so on. There is also evidence of major projects being implemented faster on the continent though the record varies between countries.

It is a FACT that the British infrastructure networks are not fit for purpose anymore. So I am sorry but I can't accept the fatality of "we live in a democracy with shite politicians, so nothing can be done about it".

It is simply unacceptable that timescale and costs are balloooning because of NIMBYS who don't want to give to others what they already have. Because of scumbags like that environmental protester Swampy who likely don't understand anything about what they are protesting against.

We have public planning inquiries and these should be enough in my opinion to adress most issues involvd with projects, especially if the manpower of the various planning bodies is strenghtened. Then it should be compulsory purchase time in by opinion using eminent domain, with any property owner being compensated at above market prices.
 
A central london monorail. I think we may well have found something worse than trams! :D

Anyway trams, the big problem with them is that they waste valuable road space (if a tram isn't on roads it become a light rail scheme). That's what always kills them, even if you can make the costs work, which is damned hard, once you add up the losses from losing all that road space the scheme looks awful. Now you could just build a dedicated tram line, but at that point (1) it's not a tram anymore as per above and (2) why not build the track to heavy rail standards and have a proper train service?

Or just admit you are making drivers lives more difficult and think they should have longer journeys and pay more taxes to support a tram service that odds on doesn't take them where they need to go (based on most UK tram scheme passenger numbers).

However I think you may find that a hard sell in a democracy, it would probably need Dunois dictatorial approach to planning to make it work. The state just telling people that planning law and property rights can be suspended as they are inconvenient. ;)

But hey - the idea of a central monorail system is DAMN COOL. :D:D:D

As for HS2, I think that it is a little odd that such a project is being undertaken when I see the considerable investment being better spent on other infrastructural improvements such as larger-scale electrification; such to the city of Plymouth which is an hour from me. Certainly, I see some electrification as being a great thing, but do we really need 15 minutes worth of time extra on our journeys northwards?

I study in Manchester, and I'd argue that Virgin Trains did a great job on their franchise between Piccadilly and Euston. First Great Western from Paddington to Exeter; not so good. :(

I like having the opinions of learned individuals who know far more about these topics than I, so thank you very much for your all-engrossing support in answering my question. (Although it's awesomely encompassed far more than I hoped!)

As it seems to have become a tradition for me to end with an interesting yet unrealistic question on London's transport system, so I hope to buck the trend ;) :

What about the Thames ferries? How far could they reach? I think that a floating ferry terminal in Central London is feasible - maybe along Embankment or summat? How many miles could these services reach up/down stream?
 
Eh you said yourself earlier on in the 12:08 thread that if we wanted to reduce costs, the politicians would have to make tough and potentially unpalatable decisions.

It is simply unacceptable that timescale and costs are balloooning because of NIMBYS who don't want to give to others what they already have. Because of scumbags like that environmental protester Swampy who likely don't understand anything about what they are protesting against.

We have public planning inquiries and these should be enough in my opinion to adress most issues involvd with projects, especially if the manpower of the various planning bodies is strenghtened. Then it should be compulsory purchase time in by opinion using eminent domain, with any property owner being compensated at above market prices.
Certainly tough decisions are needed and vested interests need fighting, but planning isn't really the bottleneck or indeed a major problem. Sure it could be improved, a few less levels of appeal would be a start and certainly a bit more honesty about public 'consultations' would improve things. The answer has been decided long before any public consultation so stop pretending, it just annoys and alienates the public and tends to generate NIMBYs rather than head them off.

Far better to run the consultation far earlier, so don't consult over HS2 when you've already got a preferred route, instead consult over HS2 vs a new standard speed main line vs mass electrification. Get studies commissioned and published for general perusal by the press, experts and public BEFORE making a decision, give people a feeling that a submission to the inquiry and consultation actually does make a difference.

However even if we had a dictatorial planning system where the great leader could just say 'Do this!' the savings would be tiny. Getting the hybrid bill and planning permission for High Speed 2 will probably cost tens of millions, maybe £100 million tops, out of a total budget of £30 billion (and the rest). It's peanuts, a rounding error. As for timescales, that's being driven by finance and capacity. There's no money till Crossrail is finished and there are definitely not enough engineers, both general civil types and the far rarer tunnellers.

Britain has enough capacity for one major tunnel scheme (as in 'largest construction site in Europe' sized major) at a time. Broadly speaking that's Channel Tunnel, Jubilee Line, CTRL, Crossrail, HS2. Of course there are dozens of other smaller schemes happening at the same time, but those jobs are the truly huge ones that suck up resources. So as the government has delayed completion of Crossrail it is natural they have to delay the start of HS2, there's just not the resources.

What are the big unpopular changes? Environmental laws are one, everything from newts to the green belt to noise restrictions during construction (building works are noisy? Who knew?). Health and Safety laws, the HSE operate on a 'guilty till grudgingly acquitted' basis and so everyone feels the need to expensively cover their arse at the expense of the project budget. This ties in with employment law, make it easier to sack idiots. As the HSE things every accident is the fault of management, idiots are a massive liability and so an even bigger cost. For instance you can put someone on a course about wearing a hat, give them a hat that fits wonderfully, tell them every day to wear a hat and spot check to see if he is wearing a hat regularly, but if something goes wrong and he's not wearing a hat that is management's fault and not his.

Those need fixing and will not be easy to do, in comparison planning is just not an issue. And as for Swampy and so on, no new laws there just make sure the Police enforce the current laws and arrest the buggers! :D
 
Top