[News] Crossrail Delay: Line will not open until 2021 as costs increase

Stat Brother · Nov 8, 2019

Crossrail Ltd chief executive Mark Wild said services would be delayed to allow time for more testing.

He also said the cost of the project could reach £18.25bn, an increase of £650m on the previously agreed total.

The budget was originally set at £15.9bn for the scheme, which will connect major landmarks such as Heathrow Airport and the Canary Wharf business district.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50345344

Just imagine having the people who negotiated this and the HS2 deal had rolled into Brussels 3 years ago, actually working for Britain instead of screwing our slackjawed government.

We'd be out of the EU, all now living in mansions and £350m a week would be spent on the NHS.

BNthree · Nov 8, 2019

Would be astounded if a major project like this finished on time and under budget. Just par for the course.

Stat Brother · Nov 8, 2019

BNthree said:
Would be astounded if a major project like this finished on time and under budget. Just par for the course.

Would happen in Germany.

Greg Bobkin · Nov 8, 2019

Stat Brother said:
Would happen in Germany.

Not always: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-48527308

:dunce:

Iggle Piggle · Nov 8, 2019

BNthree said:
Would be astounded if a major project like this finished on time and under budget. Just par for the course.

This. Crossrail involves constructing around 26 miles of tunnels beneath London and 10 new, bespoke stations. I don't think a rise of £2.25bn from the original budget is that bad, not in comparison to the cluster that is HS2 anyway.

Seasidesage · Nov 8, 2019

In this historically cheap time to borrow money we should be doing a lot more of these types of projects. Doing them better would be nice of course, but CCT skews estimates and puts unrealistic costs and timescales onto major projects like this one...

Weststander · Nov 8, 2019

Capital projects as complex as this, always go over budget, they always have done. Party politicising this is bizarre.

LamieRobertson · Nov 8, 2019

Wonder if they used Checkatrade

GOM · Nov 8, 2019

Iggle Piggle said:
This. Crossrail involves constructing around 26 miles of tunnels beneath London and 10 new, bespoke stations. I don't think a rise of £2.25bn from the original budget is that bad, not in comparison to the cluster that is HS2 anyway.

Absolutely, Crossrail is London and the South East. This is a good thing. HS1 was London and the South East. That was a good thing.

HS2 this involves the Midlands and North of England. This is not a good thing.

Brovion · Nov 8, 2019

BNthree said:
Would be astounded if a major project like this finished on time and under budget. Just par for the course.

Must admit I'm inclined to agree. It's disappointing obviously, but it was a HUGE project with lots of 'known unknowns' and the slippage in terms of times and budget is not an excuse for outrage. (Nor should it be used as an excuse not to embark on other infrastructure projects).

Iggle Piggle · Nov 8, 2019

GOM said:
Absolutely, Crossrail is London and the South East. This is a good thing. HS1 was London and the South East. That was a good thing.

HS2 this involves the Midlands and North of England. This is not a good thing.

Don't get me started on HS2. I live in the Midlands and am constantly told how great HS2 will be. The reality is that this would actually reduce the number of trains on the West Coast mainline, decimate half the countryside and increase costs on the brand spanking new line to save a whopping 10 minutes on the overall journey time. Getting to London isn't the problem. Getting around it is.

GOM · Nov 8, 2019

Iggle Piggle said:
Don't get me started on HS2. I live in the Midlands and am constantly told how great HS2 will be. The reality is that this would actually reduce the number of trains on the West Coast mainline, decimate half the countryside and increase costs on the brand spanking new line to save a whopping 10 minutes on the overall journey time. Getting to London isn't the problem. Getting around it is.

OK, I'll start you. Why would it mean less trains. The whole point of HS2 is increased capacity, 2 lines instead of one. Small increase in speed being a byproduct.

strings · Nov 8, 2019

I would totally agree with this.

I live in Yorkshire. We have fast trains to London. What we don't have is a decent train service to Manchester. In fact, the 'Pacer' trains that go through my local station were designed to be in service no later than 2000. They will still be going well into 2020.

The lack of spending on infrastructure in the north is hugely frustrating.

jaghebby · Nov 8, 2019

Iggle Piggle said:
Don't get me started on HS2. I live in the Midlands and am constantly told how great HS2 will be. The reality is that this would actually reduce the number of trains on the West Coast mainline, decimate half the countryside and increase costs on the brand spanking new line to save a whopping 10 minutes on the overall journey time. Getting to London isn't the problem. Getting around it is.

Personally I think H2S should go ahead. For one its not about speed its about increasing capacity to. If you want to get people out of their cars you have got to offer alternatives. Secondly you say it will decimate half the countryside now that really is a whopping exaggeration! Again you say getting round London is a problem I for one have never had that problem at all. :drool:

Instead of procrastinating about H2S they should get on and get it built. Don't forget it will be around for many many years to come so spreading the costs of over its lifetime makes it relatively cheap. With climate change if the don't build it now they will have to at some stage in the future at even more cost!

East Staffs Gull · Nov 8, 2019

I suspect that the majority of the problems that have been identified are being rectified at the cost of the contractors. These are causing massive delays, but not to a significant hike in costs.

chimneys · Nov 8, 2019

BNthree said:
Would be astounded if a major project like this finished on time and under budget. Just par for the course.

Quite. The naivety of the uninformed never ceases to amaze me! I'm guessing those whingeing would have found a contractor on a fixed price D & B contract, willing to underwrite the phenomenal number of unknowns, and on unlimited LADs at the outset!

:wozza:

TheJasperCo · Nov 8, 2019

jaghebby said:
Personally I think H2S should go ahead. For one its not about speed its about increasing capacity to. If you want to get people out of their cars you have got to offer alternatives. Secondly you say it will decimate half the countryside now that really is a whopping exaggeration! Again you say getting round London is a problem I for one have never had that problem at all.

Instead of procrastinating about H2S they should get on and get it built. Don't forget it will be around for many many years to come so spreading the costs of over its lifetime makes it relatively cheap. With climate change if the don't build it now they will have to at some stage in the future at even more cost!

In fairness, hasn't the project been misnamed if it is true that "high speed" isn't actually a priority? "Increased Capacity 2 (IC2)" has an equally good ring to it. But I fail to see how the benefits can outweigh the £100 billion project cost.

Sussex Nomad · Nov 8, 2019

When do Government backed projects ever run to time or on budget?

East Staffs Gull · Nov 8, 2019

GOM said:
OK, I'll start you. Why would it mean less trains. The whole point of HS2 is increased capacity, 2 lines instead of one. Small increase in speed being a byproduct.

There are already two lines between Birmingham and London, but still a shortage of capacity at peak times.

The shortest journey time between New Street and Euston is currently 80 minutes. It is claimed that HS2 will reduce the fastest journey time to 50 minutes, which to my mind would be significant.

I was initially very anti HS2, down to the high cost and the environmental impact, but have been persuaded that the benefits of increased capacity and reduced journey times will ultimately prove worthwhile.

Iggle Piggle · Nov 8, 2019

GOM said:
OK, I'll start you. Why would it mean less trains. The whole point of HS2 is increased capacity, 2 lines instead of one. Small increase in speed being a byproduct.

What use is a 2nd line if they decrease the amount of trains on the West Coast mainline and you don't live anywhere near the new train station (because an airport and existing train station isn't enough) at Birmingham International which is the last stop before London on the new line? The final bill for these wonderful improvements is upwards of 80bn and counting.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Crossrail Delay: Line will not open until 2021 as costs increase

Well-known member

Plastic JCL

Well-known member

Silver Seagull

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Not awoke

living vicariously

Well-known member

Well-known member

living vicariously

Moving further North...

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page