|
tentish klown posted:Oh gently caress that. I'm moving to London Bridge in Sept and work in Farringdon, and was going to take the Thameslink to work. Now I'm forced to take my life into my own hands and cycle. lol there'll still be the tubes and the 531 to City Thameslink (or yeah cycle it's a 15 minute journey if you're slow as gently caress) e: despite there being a 31 and a 33 there isn't a class 32 so here is a 31 snype despite this being page 32 (gently caress it they made a bunch of variants like 6 different kinds or some bullshit) 
Rude Dude With Tude fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Mar 28, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
MyFaceBeHi posted:The Home Counties IS the rest of the country! Unless you are talking about this mystical "North" those signs on the M1 seem to point towards. Like there is anything north of Milton Keynes! Seriously though, I would like to hear out Metrication's selfish wants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Metrication posted:Why? Doesn't like half the rail system in Britain end up going through Reading at some point? Or does it just seem that way if you're traveling south from Manchester?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:What about the rest of the country? Because London's growth benefits the rest of the country? I worked it out, 30% of this will be outside of London and 70% will be inside. Meaning that London is not far off paying for its entire section (note that it says 60%+ paid for by London taxpayers and businesses on the Crossrail site). Blame the home counties if they're not paying for their sections (which I think they aren't as it was reported on local news last night that they refused when funding was being drawn up). Had Crossrail gone ahead when it was first approved by Parliament in the early 90s the cost would have been some 2-3 billion in today's money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Metrication posted:Because London's growth benefits the rest of the country? [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
So why not just go to logical extreme and invest everything in London, all the time, forever?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
this is a new and exciting use of "logical" that's not in the dictionary yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Brit Cit 1 or Airstrip 1 (judge dredd and orwell just to save you effort who are confused)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Brit Cit 1 or Airstrip 1 (judge dredd and orwell just to save you effort who are confused) We've always been at war with Eastasia
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:We've always been at war with Eastasia
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Is that supposed to be some sort of response to me? Because nothing on there is even vaguely relevant to the effects of growth in London on the rest of the UK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Metrication posted:Had Crossrail gone ahead when it was first approved by Parliament in the early 90s the cost would have been some 2-3 billion in today's money. That's a slightly unfair comparison because in the early 90s BR would have been in charge and it would have been as good as could be achieved with the pittance central government gave them. Unlike now where they'll spunk money up everywhere if private industry is involved. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
The West Coast Mainline upgrades weren't just paid by the regions involved either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Munin posted:The West Coast Mainline upgrades weren't just paid by the regions involved either. it's almost like we're in some sort of collective nation state or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Is there any way to explain that away as "necessary because of how important London is" - ie, proportionally would you expect that level of investment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
Well, all the investment in London is necessary to keep this city that heavily relies on public transport going. The return of investment/business case for all of this is very good as well. We should just be spending more in other urban areas as well because the cost of not doing so now is greater than the construction cost. Those numbers are quite skewed by the way given that they're focussing on a year with Crossrail and Thameslink under construction. In the 90s you would have seen Manchester/the North West high up on that list with Metrolink being built, and in the 80s the Tyne and Wear metro was built in the North East while nothing much was being built in London.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Is there any way to explain that away as "necessary because of how important London is" - ie, proportionally would you expect that level of investment? Also does it count TfL upgrade works as investment? 'cos that's funded by fare payers and taxes from the GLA. Also if so, they could be sneaky and say TfL investment is government investment because it's owned and run by the Mayor's office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:in the 80s the Tyne and Wear metro was built in the North East while nothing much was being built in London. What about the m25? I've got a funny feeling - based on nothing more than intuition - that even in the 80s there was more spent in London on transport than anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:What about the m25?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:I don't really know enough about roadworks... Public transport wise, the first version of the DLR was built in the late 80s, on the very cheap. You had the Victoria Line in the 60s but between those two there was barely anything. Everyone forgets the Jubilee line 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Everyone forgets the Jubilee line It's the best line, too
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:What about the m25? B-b-but London is important*! *this is a way of saying that nowhere else is
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Did they just look at funds on the 2013 National Infrastructure Plan which were specifically earmarked for certain regions? (As an aside the "National Infrastructure Pipeline 2013" spreadsheet linked on that page is pretty interesting if you're into that kind of stuff...) You have another chunk of money for projects in England and the UK which add another large amount on top for each of the regions. If you include the UK and England earmarked money then London gets about 25% of total funds. Note that the 60ish % of the total funds which are allocated to UK and England are largely earmarked for use outside London (London has its funding for road schemes etc in its funding pot) which will be muddied slightly once the HS2 funding kicks in which is also allocated to England but will include the spend for the part of the project that is in London. I also like how they highlight the North West as an egregious funding example when the South West has a growing population and gets even less money per capita. Yorkshire and Humber is another growing region which is getting the shaft earmarked funds wise (though a planned scheme in Leeds from 2016/2017 will make it pull ahead of the rest of the North after that). London does get more than most but it is not quite that skewed. Perceptions are in part shaped by the fact that basically all London funding is specifically allocated to it as opposed to the other regions of the UK. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of the London funds about 43% are for tube line or tube station upgrades another 7% or so are for Overground and DLR. Crossrail alone counts for 34%. Between them they account for about 84% of London funds (if you look at the total for all funds for 2012/2013-2019/2020 in the National Infrastructure Plan 2013 which IPPR seem to also have done). Munin fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Everyone forgets the Jubilee line That's mid-nineties though. I think it's between 1915 and 1985 or so that all you really had rail-wise was the Vicci being built. Since then a lot more has been happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:That's mid-nineties though. I think it's between 1915 and 1985 or so that all you really had rail-wise was the Vicci being built. Since then a lot more has been happening. Well the original Jubilee line went down to Charing Cross and opened in 1979. The JLE down to Stratford was mid-90's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
yeah sweek  you know it used to be the Bakerloo and they built it on the cheap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Is there any way to explain that away as "necessary because of how important London is" - ie, proportionally would you expect that level of investment? You could argue some of it away as the cost of construction. An item of infrastructure is always going to be more expensive to create in London than say Burnley. The cheapest way to get a railway across London nowadays is by mining it through fifty odd metres underground with a giant mechanical worm, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Endjinneer posted:You could argue some of it away as the cost of construction. An item of infrastructure is always going to be more expensive to create in London than say Burnley. This is an argument that London is too big and densely populated and transport investment would be more fruitfully spent elsewhere rather than one for just going "oh well" and plowing more cash in. Jonnty fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26810369 Network Rail has announced a five-year plan to invest £38bn in rail infrastructure. The plan, which runs from 2014 to 2019, includes: ∙Up to 700 more trains a day between major northern cities ∙20% increase in the capacity of London's commuter trains ∙850 miles of track to be electrified ∙An east-west rail project connecting Oxford and Milton Keynes ∙Upgrades for stations including Birmingham New Street and Manchester Victoria not much london on that list, although oxford is quite close. milton keynes too i guess, don't care enough to google where it actually is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Major northern cities like Enfield and Barnet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Cerv posted:milton keynes too i guess, don't care enough to google where it actually is. About half way between Oxford and Cambridge
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Metrication posted:Major northern cities like Enfield and Barnet. that 700 figure's actually a reference to the 'northern hub' around little places like manchester / liverpool / newcastle / sheffield / leeds / york / bradford / chester / preston / huddersfield here's a very useful explanatory video http://betterrailway.co.uk/regions/north-west-and-west-midlands/#!/northern-hub
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Cerv posted:very funny Northern Hub is a cool project, I did a load of design work on the Liverpool Lime Street resignalling and remodelling in my old job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
biglads posted:Well the original Jubilee line went down to Charing Cross and opened in 1979. The JLE down to Stratford was mid-90's. That was mostly a renaming of a branch of the Metropolitan line, with a two mile extension built in the seventies. Hardly a new line. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Network Rail getting fined for lack of punctuality is stupid. The money goes from one majority-public owned entity to a completely publicly owned entity. And then NR have less money to fix poo poo. Who wins here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
The 700 trains per day is the capacity raised rather than the physical number of trains surely? Though obviously the way it's reported will make it sound like it is (and the public will believe it is).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
For some more detail you can to go to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/delivery-plans/control-period-5/cp5-delivery-plan/ - specifically the Enhancements Delivery Plan pdf.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:The point of privatizing isn't to improve services, it's to make political ally insanely wealthy. So this, like all privatizations, succeeded greatly. And recycling capital in new infrastructure that private markets won't touch; either directly or first by way of retiring debt isn't a feature? Why wouldn't you sell everything not nailed down at 2.5% interest rates where you can get 40x earnings? It's not privatisation per se - its the conflicts of interest the government chooses to embed in the process and more significantly the way they spend the receipts that is the 'real' issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 10:23
|
|
