Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stgu5v$515$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:59:59 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stg7ek$88p$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:32:04 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> Wonderful; so to connect from Crossrail to the Victoria Line, all
>>>>> passengers have to do is go up to the surface at Hanover Square, walk a
>>>>> block in all weathers, then go back down through the admitted already
>>>>> congested legacy Oxford Circus Station to the Victoria Line platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> What could possibly be sub-optimal about that?
>>>>
>>>> Why wouldn't they connect via Bond St and Green Park?
>>>
>>> Only the lengthy connection at Green Park, whichever way you then go on
>>> the Victoria.
>>
>> It's not a lengthy connection. Citymapper reckons it takes 2 mins, which
>> seems about right.
>
> Is that up and down the escalators via the ticket hall, plus the
> passages deep below the surface to get to/from the escalators?

No, of course not. Have you never used that station?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stgtl3$1cb$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:59 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stg84j$cr0$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:43:47 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> I know people are famously exasperated at the
>>>>> length of the interchange walkways at Green Park.
>>>>
>>>> It's quicker and much easier to use the escalators to connect.
>>>
>>> Which is what I always do.
>>>
>>>> You
>>>> obviously have little practical knowledge of using the Tube.
>>>
>>> I clearly have more than the average "people" do.
>>>
>>>>>> It also, via the JL, provides a good western link to the Met,
>>>>>
>>>>> Better than Farringdon?
>>>>
>>>> Did you not notice the word 'western'?
>>>
>>> Yes the Met does west (I used to catch it all the way to Uxbridge
>>> sometimes.)
>>>
>>>>> If you've started at the East End, why not change there onto the
>>>>> Met, rather than going via Bond St and another change at Baker St?
>>>>
>>>> The connection via Bond Street will be quicker and will get to more Met
>>>> services.
>>>
>>> Even though it requires another change at Baker St?
>>
>> Why would someone change at Baker St?
>
> To get to somewhere like Ickenham (a railhead I used for a few years
> being close to theA140 and more likely than others to have spare car
> park capacity)

Anyone who knows the line would change at Finchley Rd, not Baker St. You
appear to be someone whose knowledge of how to use LU is just based on the
Tube map, not practical experience.

>
>>>>> I'd have thought a connection to the Bakerloo (at
>>>>> Oxford Circus) for Wembley and Harrow would be more useful.
>>>>
>>>> If you knew anything about those lines, you'd know that people would change
>>>> at Finchley Road, not Baker Street.
>>>
>>> They clearly don't all, because the short escalators at the north end of
>>> Baker St are really busy.
>>>
>>>> And, no, a change to the Bakerloo would be much less useful, and for
>>>> those who did want it, they'd change at Paddington, not Oxford Circus,
>>>> even if there was a connection there. That's why Bond Street is a more
>>>> useful interchange than Oxford Circus.
>>>
>>> And for Piccadilly Circus to Elephant and Castle?
>>
>> Change at Tottenham Court Road.
>
> Last time I looked, the Northern Line didn't serve Piccadilly Circus,
> Lambeth North, or E&C via TCR.

It's not illegal to change twice, you know. For one journey I do
occasionally, my easiest route involves four cross-platform changes.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:00:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <stgu5v$515$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:59:59 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stgal5$t5h$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:45 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the Liverpool St station have an interchange with the Moorgate
>>>>> Northern Line platforms? There's going to be quite a challenge to the
>>>>> map-makers to show all these double-ended stations. At the moment
>>>>> there's just (elsewhere on the network) the Southwark to Waterloo East
>>>>> to Waterloo airside walking route, but they fail to show that on the
>>>>> tube map (it's on the London Connections map though).
>>>>
>>>> Stations with exits at both ends are common on European metro systems.
>>>> Stations with 6-8 or more, numbered exits are common on Asian metro
>>>> systems. I'm sure we'll cope.
>>>
>>> "We" are a map-draughtsman now, are we?
>>>
>>>>>> Bond St provides the link to the Piccadilly and Victoria lines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there an exit from the Bond St Crossrail station to the Victoria Line
>>>>> at Oxford Circus? I wonder if there are any 3D maps online to answer
>>>>> questions like this. I know people are famously exasperated at the
>>>>> length of the interchange walkways at Green Park.
>>>>
>>>> It's already been mentioned in this thread; EL Bond Street station Hanover
>>>> Square exit is a 250m walk from Oxford Circus, and will be an OSI.
>>>>
>>>> The reason there's no underground link has also been explained - Oxford
>>>> Circus station is already 'too busy' without then adding an additional line
>>>> for people to access using the existing entrances.
>>>
>>> Repeating something doesn't necessarily make it any truer, though.
>>>
>>> Anyway, nice to see people galloping to the defence of the Crossril
>>> designers, after years of pouring scorn on anything emerging from that
>>> other bastion of centralised planning, the DfT. A shame the project is
>>> so well managed it's only three years late so far.
>>
>>You seem to confuse the many different roles involved in a large building
>>project.
>
>No, if anything I think I'm less guilty of conflating them as many
>others here.

So why do you think the people who planned the route were also responsible for the fitting out of the stations a decade
later?

In message <ro1tvgp80oebq1gts37s2rsshch8ehmc7s@4ax.com>, at 14:18:45 on
Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:00:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <stgu5v$515$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:59:59 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <stgal5$t5h$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:45 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the Liverpool St station have an interchange with the Moorgate
>>>>>> Northern Line platforms? There's going to be quite a challenge to the
>>>>>> map-makers to show all these double-ended stations. At the moment
>>>>>> there's just (elsewhere on the network) the Southwark to Waterloo East
>>>>>> to Waterloo airside walking route, but they fail to show that on the
>>>>>> tube map (it's on the London Connections map though).
>>>>>
>>>>> Stations with exits at both ends are common on European metro systems.
>>>>> Stations with 6-8 or more, numbered exits are common on Asian metro
>>>>> systems. I'm sure we'll cope.
>>>>
>>>> "We" are a map-draughtsman now, are we?
>>>>
>>>>>>> Bond St provides the link to the Piccadilly and Victoria lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there an exit from the Bond St Crossrail station to the Victoria Line
>>>>>> at Oxford Circus? I wonder if there are any 3D maps online to answer
>>>>>> questions like this. I know people are famously exasperated at the
>>>>>> length of the interchange walkways at Green Park.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's already been mentioned in this thread; EL Bond Street station Hanover
>>>>> Square exit is a 250m walk from Oxford Circus, and will be an OSI.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason there's no underground link has also been explained - Oxford
>>>>> Circus station is already 'too busy' without then adding an
>>>>>additional line
>>>>> for people to access using the existing entrances.
>>>>
>>>> Repeating something doesn't necessarily make it any truer, though.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, nice to see people galloping to the defence of the Crossril
>>>> designers, after years of pouring scorn on anything emerging from that
>>>> other bastion of centralised planning, the DfT. A shame the project is
>>>> so well managed it's only three years late so far.
>>>
>>>You seem to confuse the many different roles involved in a large building
>>>project.
>>
>>No, if anything I think I'm less guilty of conflating them as many
>>others here.
>
>So why do you think the people who planned the route were also
>responsible for the fitting out of the stations a decade
>later?

Isn't it also the software that's late?
--
Roland Perry

In message <stlqjg$atd$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:36 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sthla7$h7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:34:47 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> many, perhaps most, large civil engineering projects would never get
>>> approved if the proposals had included the true costs and timescales.
>>> It's why the government adds an automatic optimism bias factor when
>>> evaluating such projects. It's a hefty 66% at the initial stage:
>>
>> And what's your response when the cost ends up at twice that 166%?
>
>In which projects has that happened?

I think the Ely bypass is an example, up from 22m to 49m.

>Note that the budget would be set at 100%, not 166% (ie, the OBF is
>used when evaluating proposals, but doesn't get added to the budget).

In the sense that the 22m above might have been 13m + 9m, yes (depending
on when the 66% was introduced and/or what equivalent percentage was
applied to the budget).

The Cambridge guided bus started at 54m, got to 116m when approved (some
of which might have been adding an optimism bias factor), and ended up
at £152m.

Cambridge North station went 15/24/44m

The Ely North junction upgrade is going through a similar upwards spiral
(and they haven't even decided on a plan, yet).

>Crossrail's overshoot has been relatively modest: it was expected to cost
>£15.9bn in 2007, subsequently cut to £14.8bn in 2010, while the final cost
>is likely to turn out to be £19bn. So that's an overshoot of just under
>20%.

But they've reduced the spec over and over again to control the costs.

Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stlqp5$c3h$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:37 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <stgtl3$1cb$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:59 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <stg84j$cr0$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:43:47 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> I know people are famously exasperated at the
>>>>>> length of the interchange walkways at Green Park.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's quicker and much easier to use the escalators to connect.
>>>>
>>>> Which is what I always do.
>>>>
>>>>> You obviously have little practical knowledge of using the Tube.
>>>>
>>>> I clearly have more than the average "people" do.
>>>>
>>>>>>> It also, via the JL, provides a good western link to the Met,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better than Farringdon?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you not notice the word 'western'?
>>>>
>>>> Yes the Met does west (I used to catch it all the way to Uxbridge
>>>> sometimes.)
>>>>
>>>>>> If you've started at the East End, why not change there onto the
>>>>>> Met, rather than going via Bond St and another change at Baker St?
>>>>>
>>>>> The connection via Bond Street will be quicker and will get to more Met
>>>>> services.
>>>>
>>>> Even though it requires another change at Baker St?
>>>
>>> Why would someone change at Baker St?
>>
>> To get to somewhere like Ickenham (a railhead I used for a few years
>> being close to theA140 and more likely than others to have spare car
>> park capacity)
>
>Anyone who knows the line would change at Finchley Rd, not Baker St. You
>appear to be someone whose knowledge of how to use LU is just based on the
>Tube map, not practical experience.
>
>>
>>>>>> I'd have thought a connection to the Bakerloo (at
>>>>>> Oxford Circus) for Wembley and Harrow would be more useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you knew anything about those lines, you'd know that people
>>>>>would change at Finchley Road, not Baker Street.
>>>>
>>>> They clearly don't all, because the short escalators at the north end of
>>>> Baker St are really busy.
>>>>
>>>>> And, no, a change to the Bakerloo would be much less useful, and for
>>>>> those who did want it, they'd change at Paddington, not Oxford Circus,
>>>>> even if there was a connection there. That's why Bond Street is a more
>>>>> useful interchange than Oxford Circus.
>>>>
>>>> And for Piccadilly Circus to Elephant and Castle?
>>>
>>> Change at Tottenham Court Road.
>>
>> Last time I looked, the Northern Line didn't serve Piccadilly Circus,
>> Lambeth North, or E&C via TCR.
>
>It's not illegal to change twice, you know. For one journey I do
>occasionally, my easiest route involves four cross-platform changes.

I'm all in favour of cross-platform changes. There are several places
where it facilitates a step-fee journey as well. Hammersmith is one I
used a lot, and Loughborough Junction as a stepless double-back to avoid
steps elsewhere is certainly in the theory books.

Sadly I think the London Bridge rebuild vaped several national Rail
cross-platform changes, and while they were strictly long-platform
(rather than across) the same when they built the island at Cambridge.
Adding an extra island at Peterborough a few years ago reduced the
number of cross-platform changes there as well.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stlqjg$atd$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:36 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <stgu5v$515$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:59:59 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <stg7ek$88p$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:32:04 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> Wonderful; so to connect from Crossrail to the Victoria Line, all
>>>>>> passengers have to do is go up to the surface at Hanover Square, walk a
>>>>>> block in all weathers, then go back down through the admitted already
>>>>>> congested legacy Oxford Circus Station to the Victoria Line platforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What could possibly be sub-optimal about that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why wouldn't they connect via Bond St and Green Park?
>>>>
>>>> Only the lengthy connection at Green Park, whichever way you then go on
>>>> the Victoria.
>>>
>>> It's not a lengthy connection. Citymapper reckons it takes 2 mins, which
>>> seems about right.
>>
>> Is that up and down the escalators via the ticket hall, plus the
>> passages deep below the surface to get to/from the escalators?
>
>No, of course not. Have you never used that station?

I've used it countless times. But was distracted by your bragging about
knowing it was quicker to interchange via the ticket hall, but that's
Victoria to Piccadilly. Jubilee to Victoria is shorter, I agree.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 06:10:16 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <stlqjg$atd$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:36 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sthla7$h7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:34:47 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> many, perhaps most, large civil engineering projects would never get
>>>> approved if the proposals had included the true costs and timescales.
>>>> It's why the government adds an automatic optimism bias factor when
>>>> evaluating such projects. It's a hefty 66% at the initial stage:
>>>
>>> And what's your response when the cost ends up at twice that 166%?
>>
>>In which projects has that happened?
>
>I think the Ely bypass is an example, up from 22m to 49m.
>
>>Note that the budget would be set at 100%, not 166% (ie, the OBF is
>>used when evaluating proposals, but doesn't get added to the budget).
>
>In the sense that the 22m above might have been 13m + 9m, yes (depending
>on when the 66% was introduced and/or what equivalent percentage was
>applied to the budget).

The 66% isn't added formally, but the factor is applied when evaluating the project's BCR. So it's never added to the
budget or the approved spending limit.

>
>The Cambridge guided bus started at 54m, got to 116m when approved (some
>of which might have been adding an optimism bias factor), and ended up
>at £152m.
>
>Cambridge North station went 15/24/44m
>
>The Ely North junction upgrade is going through a similar upwards spiral
>(and they haven't even decided on a plan, yet).
>
>>Crossrail's overshoot has been relatively modest: it was expected to cost
>>£15.9bn in 2007, subsequently cut to £14.8bn in 2010, while the final cost
>>is likely to turn out to be £19bn. So that's an overshoot of just under
>>20%.
>
>But they've reduced the spec over and over again to control the costs.

What specs have they reduced? The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich station and the
extension from Maidenhead to Reading.

>Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.

Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something that would have been desirable, but was never
approved?

Similarly, Chiltern has asked for access to OOC, for good reasons, but it was never granted. So it can't be regarded as
a cut in the OOC spec, just a want that wasn't approved.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 05:58:18 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <ro1tvgp80oebq1gts37s2rsshch8ehmc7s@4ax.com>, at 14:18:45 on
>Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:00:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <stgu5v$515$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:59:59 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <stgal5$t5h$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:45 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the Liverpool St station have an interchange with the Moorgate
>>>>>>> Northern Line platforms? There's going to be quite a challenge to the
>>>>>>> map-makers to show all these double-ended stations. At the moment
>>>>>>> there's just (elsewhere on the network) the Southwark to Waterloo East
>>>>>>> to Waterloo airside walking route, but they fail to show that on the
>>>>>>> tube map (it's on the London Connections map though).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stations with exits at both ends are common on European metro systems.
>>>>>> Stations with 6-8 or more, numbered exits are common on Asian metro
>>>>>> systems. I'm sure we'll cope.
>>>>>
>>>>> "We" are a map-draughtsman now, are we?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bond St provides the link to the Piccadilly and Victoria lines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there an exit from the Bond St Crossrail station to the Victoria Line
>>>>>>> at Oxford Circus? I wonder if there are any 3D maps online to answer
>>>>>>> questions like this. I know people are famously exasperated at the
>>>>>>> length of the interchange walkways at Green Park.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's already been mentioned in this thread; EL Bond Street station Hanover
>>>>>> Square exit is a 250m walk from Oxford Circus, and will be an OSI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason there's no underground link has also been explained - Oxford
>>>>>> Circus station is already 'too busy' without then adding an
>>>>>>additional line
>>>>>> for people to access using the existing entrances.
>>>>>
>>>>> Repeating something doesn't necessarily make it any truer, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, nice to see people galloping to the defence of the Crossril
>>>>> designers, after years of pouring scorn on anything emerging from that
>>>>> other bastion of centralised planning, the DfT. A shame the project is
>>>>> so well managed it's only three years late so far.
>>>>
>>>>You seem to confuse the many different roles involved in a large building
>>>>project.
>>>
>>>No, if anything I think I'm less guilty of conflating them as many
>>>others here.
>>
>>So why do you think the people who planned the route were also
>>responsible for the fitting out of the stations a decade
>>later?
>
>Isn't it also the software that's late?

Not so much late as not performing to spec. There have been many releases of the software, but they have fallen short
of the requirements. Again, this is no fault of the people who designed the route.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 08:03:35 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <stlqjg$atd$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:36 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stgu5v$515$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:59:59 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <stg7ek$88p$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:32:04 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wonderful; so to connect from Crossrail to the Victoria Line, all
>>>>>>> passengers have to do is go up to the surface at Hanover Square, walk a
>>>>>>> block in all weathers, then go back down through the admitted already
>>>>>>> congested legacy Oxford Circus Station to the Victoria Line platforms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What could possibly be sub-optimal about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why wouldn't they connect via Bond St and Green Park?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only the lengthy connection at Green Park, whichever way you then go on
>>>>> the Victoria.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a lengthy connection. Citymapper reckons it takes 2 mins, which
>>>> seems about right.
>>>
>>> Is that up and down the escalators via the ticket hall, plus the
>>> passages deep below the surface to get to/from the escalators?
>>
>>No, of course not. Have you never used that station?
>
>I've used it countless times. But was distracted by your bragging about
>knowing it was quicker to interchange via the ticket hall, but that's
>Victoria to Piccadilly.

Also Jubilee to Piccadilly.

> Jubilee to Victoria is shorter, I agree.

It's a very easy, quick change, with little walking.

In message <81kvvg53pd8pvbfa8frm0g8t067i3me8je@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 06:10:16 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <stlqjg$atd$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:36 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sthla7$h7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:34:47 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> many, perhaps most, large civil engineering projects would never get
>>>>> approved if the proposals had included the true costs and timescales.
>>>>> It's why the government adds an automatic optimism bias factor when
>>>>> evaluating such projects. It's a hefty 66% at the initial stage:
>>>>
>>>> And what's your response when the cost ends up at twice that 166%?
>>>
>>>In which projects has that happened?
>>
>>I think the Ely bypass is an example, up from 22m to 49m.
>>
>>>Note that the budget would be set at 100%, not 166% (ie, the OBF is
>>>used when evaluating proposals, but doesn't get added to the budget).
>>
>>In the sense that the 22m above might have been 13m + 9m, yes (depending
>>on when the 66% was introduced and/or what equivalent percentage was
>>applied to the budget).
>
>The 66% isn't added formally, but the factor is applied when evaluating
>the project's BCR. So it's never added to the
>budget or the approved spending limit.
>
>>
>>The Cambridge guided bus started at 54m, got to 116m when approved (some
>>of which might have been adding an optimism bias factor), and ended up
>>at £152m.
>>
>>Cambridge North station went 15/24/44m
>>
>>The Ely North junction upgrade is going through a similar upwards spiral
>>(and they haven't even decided on a plan, yet).
>>
>>>Crossrail's overshoot has been relatively modest: it was expected to cost
>>>£15.9bn in 2007, subsequently cut to £14.8bn in 2010, while the final cost
>>>is likely to turn out to be £19bn. So that's an overshoot of just under
>>>20%.
>>
>>But they've reduced the spec over and over again to control the costs.
>
>What specs have they reduced?

The first was scrapping toilets at all the stations. That won't have
been the only spartanising of the project.

>The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich
>station and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading.
>
>>Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>
>Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>that would have been desirable, but was never approved?

They left the provision of that station to the last minute, having to
get some special extra funding to fit out the box under the west-side of
the site. The original plan was to have two platforms each way, so that
for example a northbound train which was stalled there because the route
via Finsbury Park was blocked, didn't also block the route towards
Luton. Southbound, it would allow better regulation of the service
because a slightly late-running train on one of the converging branches
could overtake one from the other branch.

>Similarly, Chiltern has asked for access to OOC, for good reasons, but
>it was never granted. So it can't be regarded as a cut in the OOC spec,
>just a want that wasn't approved.

--
Roland Perry

In message <ihkvvg1agbk5jqmddq8mr186l1k7shs5bt@4ax.com>, at 13:51:59 on
Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 05:58:18 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <ro1tvgp80oebq1gts37s2rsshch8ehmc7s@4ax.com>, at 14:18:45 on
>>Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:00:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <stgu5v$515$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:59:59 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <stgal5$t5h$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:45 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the Liverpool St station have an interchange with the Moorgate
>>>>>>>> Northern Line platforms? There's going to be quite a challenge to the
>>>>>>>> map-makers to show all these double-ended stations. At the moment
>>>>>>>> there's just (elsewhere on the network) the Southwark to Waterloo East
>>>>>>>> to Waterloo airside walking route, but they fail to show that on the
>>>>>>>> tube map (it's on the London Connections map though).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stations with exits at both ends are common on European metro systems.
>>>>>>> Stations with 6-8 or more, numbered exits are common on Asian metro
>>>>>>> systems. I'm sure we'll cope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We" are a map-draughtsman now, are we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bond St provides the link to the Piccadilly and Victoria lines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there an exit from the Bond St Crossrail station to the
>>>>>>>>Victoria Line
>>>>>>>> at Oxford Circus? I wonder if there are any 3D maps online to answer
>>>>>>>> questions like this. I know people are famously exasperated at the
>>>>>>>> length of the interchange walkways at Green Park.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's already been mentioned in this thread; EL Bond Street
>>>>>>>station Hanover
>>>>>>> Square exit is a 250m walk from Oxford Circus, and will be an OSI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason there's no underground link has also been explained - Oxford
>>>>>>> Circus station is already 'too busy' without then adding an
>>>>>>>additional line
>>>>>>> for people to access using the existing entrances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Repeating something doesn't necessarily make it any truer, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, nice to see people galloping to the defence of the Crossril
>>>>>> designers, after years of pouring scorn on anything emerging from that
>>>>>> other bastion of centralised planning, the DfT. A shame the project is
>>>>>> so well managed it's only three years late so far.
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to confuse the many different roles involved in a large building
>>>>>project.
>>>>
>>>>No, if anything I think I'm less guilty of conflating them as many
>>>>others here.
>>>
>>>So why do you think the people who planned the route were also
>>>responsible for the fitting out of the stations a decade
>>>later?
>>
>>Isn't it also the software that's late?
>
>Not so much late as not performing to spec.

Everywhere except Recliner-World, that's late being delivered on-spec.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <81kvvg53pd8pvbfa8frm0g8t067i3me8je@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
> Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 06:10:16 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <stlqjg$atd$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:36 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <sthla7$h7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:34:47 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> many, perhaps most, large civil engineering projects would never get
>>>>>> approved if the proposals had included the true costs and timescales.
>>>>>> It's why the government adds an automatic optimism bias factor when
>>>>>> evaluating such projects. It's a hefty 66% at the initial stage:
>>>>>
>>>>> And what's your response when the cost ends up at twice that 166%?
>>>>
>>>> In which projects has that happened?
>>>
>>> I think the Ely bypass is an example, up from 22m to 49m.
>>>
>>>> Note that the budget would be set at 100%, not 166% (ie, the OBF is
>>>> used when evaluating proposals, but doesn't get added to the budget).
>>>
>>> In the sense that the 22m above might have been 13m + 9m, yes (depending
>>> on when the 66% was introduced and/or what equivalent percentage was
>>> applied to the budget).
>>
>> The 66% isn't added formally, but the factor is applied when evaluating
>> the project's BCR. So it's never added to the
>> budget or the approved spending limit.
>>
>>>
>>> The Cambridge guided bus started at 54m, got to 116m when approved (some
>>> of which might have been adding an optimism bias factor), and ended up
>>> at £152m.
>>>
>>> Cambridge North station went 15/24/44m
>>>
>>> The Ely North junction upgrade is going through a similar upwards spiral
>>> (and they haven't even decided on a plan, yet).
>>>
>>>> Crossrail's overshoot has been relatively modest: it was expected to cost
>>>> £15.9bn in 2007, subsequently cut to £14.8bn in 2010, while the final cost
>>>> is likely to turn out to be £19bn. So that's an overshoot of just under
>>>> 20%.
>>>
>>> But they've reduced the spec over and over again to control the costs.
>>
>> What specs have they reduced?
>
> The first was scrapping toilets at all the stations. That won't have
> been the only spartanising of the project.

https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2020/0957

What else do you think has been dropped?

>
>> The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich
>> station and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading.
>>
>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>>
>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>> that would have been desirable, but was never approved?
>
> They left the provision of that station to the last minute, having to
> get some special extra funding to fit out the box under the west-side of
> the site. The original plan was to have two platforms each way, so that
> for example a northbound train which was stalled there because the route
> via Finsbury Park was blocked, didn't also block the route towards
> Luton. Southbound, it would allow better regulation of the service
> because a slightly late-running train on one of the converging branches
> could overtake one from the other branch.

Yes, four platforms would certainly be better, but was they ever part of
the budgeted plan?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ihkvvg1agbk5jqmddq8mr186l1k7shs5bt@4ax.com>, at 13:51:59 on
> Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 05:58:18 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <ro1tvgp80oebq1gts37s2rsshch8ehmc7s@4ax.com>, at 14:18:45 on
>>> Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:00:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <stgu5v$515$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:59:59 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <stgal5$t5h$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:26:45 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does the Liverpool St station have an interchange with the Moorgate
>>>>>>>>> Northern Line platforms? There's going to be quite a challenge to the
>>>>>>>>> map-makers to show all these double-ended stations. At the moment
>>>>>>>>> there's just (elsewhere on the network) the Southwark to Waterloo East
>>>>>>>>> to Waterloo airside walking route, but they fail to show that on the
>>>>>>>>> tube map (it's on the London Connections map though).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stations with exits at both ends are common on European metro systems.
>>>>>>>> Stations with 6-8 or more, numbered exits are common on Asian metro
>>>>>>>> systems. I'm sure we'll cope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "We" are a map-draughtsman now, are we?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bond St provides the link to the Piccadilly and Victoria lines.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there an exit from the Bond St Crossrail station to the
>>>>>>>>> Victoria Line
>>>>>>>>> at Oxford Circus? I wonder if there are any 3D maps online to answer
>>>>>>>>> questions like this. I know people are famously exasperated at the
>>>>>>>>> length of the interchange walkways at Green Park.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's already been mentioned in this thread; EL Bond Street
>>>>>>>> station Hanover
>>>>>>>> Square exit is a 250m walk from Oxford Circus, and will be an OSI.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reason there's no underground link has also been explained - Oxford
>>>>>>>> Circus station is already 'too busy' without then adding an
>>>>>>>> additional line
>>>>>>>> for people to access using the existing entrances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Repeating something doesn't necessarily make it any truer, though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, nice to see people galloping to the defence of the Crossril
>>>>>>> designers, after years of pouring scorn on anything emerging from that
>>>>>>> other bastion of centralised planning, the DfT. A shame the project is
>>>>>>> so well managed it's only three years late so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to confuse the many different roles involved in a large building
>>>>>> project.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, if anything I think I'm less guilty of conflating them as many
>>>>> others here.
>>>>
>>>> So why do you think the people who planned the route were also
>>>> responsible for the fitting out of the stations a decade
>>>> later?
>>>
>>> Isn't it also the software that's late?
>>
>> Not so much late as not performing to spec.
>
> Everywhere except Recliner-World, that's late being delivered on-spec.
>

And what has that got to do with the people who planned the route, who you
appesred to be blaming for the subsequent station delays?

In message <stou1q$1qt$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:46:50 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <81kvvg53pd8pvbfa8frm0g8t067i3me8je@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
>> Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 06:10:16 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <stlqjg$atd$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:36 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <sthla7$h7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:34:47 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> many, perhaps most, large civil engineering projects would never get
>>>>>>> approved if the proposals had included the true costs and timescales.
>>>>>>> It's why the government adds an automatic optimism bias factor when
>>>>>>> evaluating such projects. It's a hefty 66% at the initial stage:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what's your response when the cost ends up at twice that 166%?
>>>>>
>>>>> In which projects has that happened?
>>>>
>>>> I think the Ely bypass is an example, up from 22m to 49m.
>>>>
>>>>> Note that the budget would be set at 100%, not 166% (ie, the OBF is
>>>>> used when evaluating proposals, but doesn't get added to the budget).
>>>>
>>>> In the sense that the 22m above might have been 13m + 9m, yes (depending
>>>> on when the 66% was introduced and/or what equivalent percentage was
>>>> applied to the budget).
>>>
>>> The 66% isn't added formally, but the factor is applied when evaluating
>>> the project's BCR. So it's never added to the
>>> budget or the approved spending limit.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Cambridge guided bus started at 54m, got to 116m when approved (some
>>>> of which might have been adding an optimism bias factor), and ended up
>>>> at £152m.
>>>>
>>>> Cambridge North station went 15/24/44m
>>>>
>>>> The Ely North junction upgrade is going through a similar upwards spiral
>>>> (and they haven't even decided on a plan, yet).
>>>>
>>>>> Crossrail's overshoot has been relatively modest: it was expected to cost
>>>>> £15.9bn in 2007, subsequently cut to £14.8bn in 2010, while the
>>>>>final cost
>>>>> is likely to turn out to be £19bn. So that's an overshoot of just under
>>>>> 20%.
>>>>
>>>> But they've reduced the spec over and over again to control the costs.
>>>
>>> What specs have they reduced?
>>
>> The first was scrapping toilets at all the stations. That won't have
>> been the only spartanising of the project.
>
>https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2020/0957

Which shows that none of the stations in the core have the originally
planned toilets.

>What else do you think has been dropped?

First Google hit: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/sep/27/crossrail-
budget-cuts>

>>> The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich
>>> station and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading.
>>>
>>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>>>
>>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>>> that would have been desirable, but was never approved?
>>
>> They left the provision of that station to the last minute, having to
>> get some special extra funding to fit out the box under the west-side of
>> the site. The original plan was to have two platforms each way, so that
>> for example a northbound train which was stalled there because the route
>> via Finsbury Park was blocked, didn't also block the route towards
>> Luton. Southbound, it would allow better regulation of the service
>> because a slightly late-running train on one of the converging branches
>> could overtake one from the other branch.
>
>Yes, four platforms would certainly be better, but was they ever part of
>the budgeted plan?

Fitting out the station at all was never in the budget. Which is a shame
because it means the original budget omitted to mention something which
had inevitably to be funded in one form or other.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stou1r$1qt$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:46:51 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>> Anyway, nice to see people galloping to the defence of the Crossril
>>>>>>>> designers, after years of pouring scorn on anything emerging from that
>>>>>>>> other bastion of centralised planning, the DfT. A shame the project is
>>>>>>>> so well managed it's only three years late so far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to confuse the many different roles involved in a large
>>>>>>>building project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, if anything I think I'm less guilty of conflating them as many
>>>>>> others here.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why do you think the people who planned the route were also
>>>>> responsible for the fitting out of the stations a decade
>>>>> later?
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it also the software that's late?
>>>
>>> Not so much late as not performing to spec.
>>
>> Everywhere except Recliner-World, that's late being delivered on-spec.
>
>And what has that got to do with the people who planned the route, who you
>appesred to be blaming for the subsequent station delays?

I'm not, it's the overall project manage I'm blaming.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stou1q$1qt$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:46:50 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <81kvvg53pd8pvbfa8frm0g8t067i3me8je@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
>>> Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 06:10:16 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <stlqjg$atd$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:36 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <sthla7$h7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:34:47 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> many, perhaps most, large civil engineering projects would never get
>>>>>>>> approved if the proposals had included the true costs and timescales.
>>>>>>>> It's why the government adds an automatic optimism bias factor when
>>>>>>>> evaluating such projects. It's a hefty 66% at the initial stage:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what's your response when the cost ends up at twice that 166%?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In which projects has that happened?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the Ely bypass is an example, up from 22m to 49m.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that the budget would be set at 100%, not 166% (ie, the OBF is
>>>>>> used when evaluating proposals, but doesn't get added to the budget).
>>>>>
>>>>> In the sense that the 22m above might have been 13m + 9m, yes (depending
>>>>> on when the 66% was introduced and/or what equivalent percentage was
>>>>> applied to the budget).
>>>>
>>>> The 66% isn't added formally, but the factor is applied when evaluating
>>>> the project's BCR. So it's never added to the
>>>> budget or the approved spending limit.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Cambridge guided bus started at 54m, got to 116m when approved (some
>>>>> of which might have been adding an optimism bias factor), and ended up
>>>>> at £152m.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cambridge North station went 15/24/44m
>>>>>
>>>>> The Ely North junction upgrade is going through a similar upwards spiral
>>>>> (and they haven't even decided on a plan, yet).
>>>>>
>>>>>> Crossrail's overshoot has been relatively modest: it was expected to cost
>>>>>> £15.9bn in 2007, subsequently cut to £14.8bn in 2010, while the
>>>>>> final cost
>>>>>> is likely to turn out to be £19bn. So that's an overshoot of just under
>>>>>> 20%.
>>>>>
>>>>> But they've reduced the spec over and over again to control the costs.
>>>>
>>>> What specs have they reduced?
>>>
>>> The first was scrapping toilets at all the stations. That won't have
>>> been the only spartanising of the project.
>>
>> https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2020/0957
>
> Which shows that none of the stations in the core have the originally
> planned toilets.

Farringdon does have a toilet that was added. So the only omissions are
Bond St, Tottenham Court Rd and Whitechapel.

>
>> What else do you think has been dropped?
>
> First Google hit: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/sep/27/crossrail-
> budget-cuts>

Perhaps you should have read it before posting?

"The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
outer-London spurs will still be built."

In other words, nothing was cut.

"Efficiencies would be found by making use of existing train designs,
rather than building new carriages from scratch, the company said."

All the trains were in fact brand new, built to a new design, unique to
Crossrail.

"The latest cuts are part of Crossrail's ongoing review of costs on the
line, which will run for more than 73 miles from Maidenhead and Heathrow in
the west, through new, twin-bore 13-mile tunnels under central London to
Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east."

Do you think that's a cut? The line was subsequently extended to Reading.

>
>>>> The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich
>>>> station and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading.
>>>>
>>>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>>>>
>>>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>>>> that would have been desirable, but was never approved?
>>>
>>> They left the provision of that station to the last minute, having to
>>> get some special extra funding to fit out the box under the west-side of
>>> the site. The original plan was to have two platforms each way, so that
>>> for example a northbound train which was stalled there because the route
>>> via Finsbury Park was blocked, didn't also block the route towards
>>> Luton. Southbound, it would allow better regulation of the service
>>> because a slightly late-running train on one of the converging branches
>>> could overtake one from the other branch.
>>
>> Yes, four platforms would certainly be better, but was they ever part of
>> the budgeted plan?
>
> Fitting out the station at all was never in the budget. Which is a shame
> because it means the original budget omitted to mention something which
> had inevitably to be funded in one form or other.

So it wasn't a cut at all? It was something added to the project, just not
in the gold-plated form you'd have preferred.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stou1r$1qt$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:46:51 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, nice to see people galloping to the defence of the Crossril
>>>>>>>>> designers, after years of pouring scorn on anything emerging from that
>>>>>>>>> other bastion of centralised planning, the DfT. A shame the project is
>>>>>>>>> so well managed it's only three years late so far.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to confuse the many different roles involved in a large
>>>>>>>> building project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, if anything I think I'm less guilty of conflating them as many
>>>>>>> others here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why do you think the people who planned the route were also
>>>>>> responsible for the fitting out of the stations a decade
>>>>>> later?
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it also the software that's late?
>>>>
>>>> Not so much late as not performing to spec.
>>>
>>> Everywhere except Recliner-World, that's late being delivered on-spec.
>>
>> And what has that got to do with the people who planned the route, who you
>> appesred to be blaming for the subsequent station delays?
>
> I'm not, it's the overall project manage I'm blaming.

Ah, I must admit that I misunderstood this statement: "Anyway, nice to see
people galloping to the defence of the Crossril designers".

On 2022-02-06 13:50:32 +0000, Recliner said:

> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 06:10:16 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>
> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
> that would have been desirable, but was never
> approved?

The station box and the canal tunnels (that provide the connection
between Thameslink and the ECML were included in the St Pancras works
for HS1, because it was clear that the Thameslink program was going to
happen at some point, and it was much cheaper and easier to build those
things as part fo the general rebuild of St Pancras. The box and the
tunnels were left as unfinished structures, with no track in the canal
tunnels and the only thing in the station box being the track needed to
provide the existing Thameslink service. When the St Pacnras plans
were settled, it was decided to build the station box and related
structures to allow provision for a 4 platform Thameslink station.

When the Thameslink program actually came to pass and the station was
built, track laid to connect the ECML and all that, only a 2 platform
station was built. Exactly how the decision was made to go with 2
platforms, and at what stage in the process of finalising the
specification and budget this decision was taken is something I am not
certain of, whether it was a reduced scope to conform to an agreed
budget that would otherwise not be met, or a reduction in the planned
scope when it was decided the cost of the 4 platform option would make
the necessary budget too great.

Robin

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-02-06 13:50:32 +0000, Recliner said:
>
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 06:10:16 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>>
>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>> that would have been desirable, but was never
>> approved?
>
> The station box and the canal tunnels (that provide the connection
> between Thameslink and the ECML were included in the St Pancras works
> for HS1, because it was clear that the Thameslink program was going to
> happen at some point, and it was much cheaper and easier to build those
> things as part fo the general rebuild of St Pancras. The box and the
> tunnels were left as unfinished structures, with no track in the canal
> tunnels and the only thing in the station box being the track needed to
> provide the existing Thameslink service. When the St Pacnras plans
> were settled, it was decided to build the station box and related
> structures to allow provision for a 4 platform Thameslink station.
>
> When the Thameslink program actually came to pass and the station was
> built, track laid to connect the ECML and all that, only a 2 platform
> station was built. Exactly how the decision was made to go with 2
> platforms, and at what stage in the process of finalising the
> specification and budget this decision was taken is something I am not
> certain of, whether it was a reduced scope to conform to an agreed
> budget that would otherwise not be met, or a reduction in the planned
> scope when it was decided the cost of the 4 platform option would make
> the necessary budget too great.
>

I suppose London Bridge ate up the available station funding in the TL
programme.

In message <stqrp9$1vj$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:20:25 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-02-06 13:50:32 +0000, Recliner said:
>
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 06:10:16 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>>that would have been desirable, but was never
>> approved?
>
>The station box and the canal tunnels (that provide the connection
>between Thameslink and the ECML were included in the St Pancras works
>for HS1, because it was clear that the Thameslink program was going to
>happen at some point, and it was much cheaper and easier to build those
>things as part fo the general rebuild of St Pancras. The box and the
>tunnels were left as unfinished structures, with no track in the canal
>tunnels and the only thing in the station box being the track needed to
>provide the existing Thameslink service. When the St Pacnras plans
>were settled, it was decided to build the station box and related
>structures to allow provision for a 4 platform Thameslink station.

Thankyou! I knew I wasn't imagining it.

>When the Thameslink program actually came to pass and the station was
>built, track laid to connect the ECML and all that, only a 2 platform
>station was built. Exactly how the decision was made to go with 2
>platforms, and at what stage in the process of finalising the
>specification and budget this decision was taken is something I am not
>certain of, whether it was a reduced scope to conform to an agreed
>budget that would otherwise not be met, or a reduction in the planned
>scope when it was decided the cost of the 4 platform option would make
>the necessary budget too great.

Maybe they thought the new signalling was going to be good enough not
need the provision for some recovery time at StP.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stpd33$tna$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:31 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <stou1q$1qt$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:46:50 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <81kvvg53pd8pvbfa8frm0g8t067i3me8je@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
>>>> Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 06:10:16 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <stlqjg$atd$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:36 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <sthla7$h7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:34:47 on Thu, 3
>>>>>>>>Feb 2022,
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> many, perhaps most, large civil engineering projects would never get
>>>>>>>>> approved if the proposals had included the true costs and timescales.
>>>>>>>>> It's why the government adds an automatic optimism bias factor when
>>>>>>>>> evaluating such projects. It's a hefty 66% at the initial stage:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what's your response when the cost ends up at twice that 166%?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In which projects has that happened?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the Ely bypass is an example, up from 22m to 49m.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that the budget would be set at 100%, not 166% (ie, the OBF is
>>>>>>> used when evaluating proposals, but doesn't get added to the budget).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the sense that the 22m above might have been 13m + 9m, yes (depending
>>>>>> on when the 66% was introduced and/or what equivalent percentage was
>>>>>> applied to the budget).
>>>>>
>>>>> The 66% isn't added formally, but the factor is applied when evaluating
>>>>> the project's BCR. So it's never added to the
>>>>> budget or the approved spending limit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Cambridge guided bus started at 54m, got to 116m when approved (some
>>>>>> of which might have been adding an optimism bias factor), and ended up
>>>>>> at £152m.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cambridge North station went 15/24/44m
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Ely North junction upgrade is going through a similar upwards spiral
>>>>>> (and they haven't even decided on a plan, yet).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Crossrail's overshoot has been relatively modest: it was
>>>>>>>expected to cost
>>>>>>> £15.9bn in 2007, subsequently cut to £14.8bn in 2010, while the
>>>>>>> final cost
>>>>>>> is likely to turn out to be £19bn. So that's an overshoot of just under
>>>>>>> 20%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But they've reduced the spec over and over again to control the costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> What specs have they reduced?
>>>>
>>>> The first was scrapping toilets at all the stations. That won't have
>>>> been the only spartanising of the project.
>>>
>>> https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2020/0957
>>
>> Which shows that none of the stations in the core have the originally
>> planned toilets.
>
>Farringdon does have a toilet that was added. So the only omissions are
>Bond St, Tottenham Court Rd and Whitechapel.

There was always "last resort" toilet at Farringdon. If that's the one
they have repurposed, more shame on them.

>>> What else do you think has been dropped?
>>
>> First Google hit: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/sep/27/crossrail-
>> budget-cuts>
>
>Perhaps you should have read it before posting?
>
>"The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>outer-London spurs will still be built."
>
>In other words, nothing was cut.

Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
what else?

>"Efficiencies would be found by making use of existing train designs,
>rather than building new carriages from scratch, the company said."
>
>All the trains were in fact brand new, built to a new design, unique to
>Crossrail.
>
>"The latest cuts are part of Crossrail's ongoing review of costs on the
>line, which will run for more than 73 miles from Maidenhead and Heathrow in
>the west, through new, twin-bore 13-mile tunnels under central London to
>Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east."
>
>Do you think that's a cut? The line was subsequently extended to Reading.

Only by finding separate funding. It's well known that the Crossrail
project would never have got approval for an initial plan to go as far
west as Reading, including the OHL costs that far west and the
consequential rebuilding of Reading station.

>>>>> The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich
>>>>> station and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>>>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>>>>> that would have been desirable, but was never approved?
>>>>
>>>> They left the provision of that station to the last minute, having to
>>>> get some special extra funding to fit out the box under the west-side of
>>>> the site. The original plan was to have two platforms each way, so that
>>>> for example a northbound train which was stalled there because the route
>>>> via Finsbury Park was blocked, didn't also block the route towards
>>>> Luton. Southbound, it would allow better regulation of the service
>>>> because a slightly late-running train on one of the converging branches
>>>> could overtake one from the other branch.
>>>
>>> Yes, four platforms would certainly be better, but was they ever part of
>>> the budgeted plan?
>>
>> Fitting out the station at all was never in the budget. Which is a shame
>> because it means the original budget omitted to mention something which
>> had inevitably to be funded in one form or other.
>
>So it wasn't a cut at all? It was something added to the project, just not
>in the gold-plated form you'd have preferred.

No, as other posters have confirmed, it was a cut from four to two
platforms.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stpd33$tna$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:31 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stou1q$1qt$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:46:50 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <81kvvg53pd8pvbfa8frm0g8t067i3me8je@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
>>>>> Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 06:10:16 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <stlqjg$atd$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:36 on Sat, 5 Feb 2022,
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <sthla7$h7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:34:47 on Thu, 3
>>>>>>>>> Feb 2022,
>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> many, perhaps most, large civil engineering projects would never get
>>>>>>>>>> approved if the proposals had included the true costs and timescales.
>>>>>>>>>> It's why the government adds an automatic optimism bias factor when
>>>>>>>>>> evaluating such projects. It's a hefty 66% at the initial stage:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what's your response when the cost ends up at twice that 166%?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In which projects has that happened?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the Ely bypass is an example, up from 22m to 49m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that the budget would be set at 100%, not 166% (ie, the OBF is
>>>>>>>> used when evaluating proposals, but doesn't get added to the budget).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the sense that the 22m above might have been 13m + 9m, yes (depending
>>>>>>> on when the 66% was introduced and/or what equivalent percentage was
>>>>>>> applied to the budget).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 66% isn't added formally, but the factor is applied when evaluating
>>>>>> the project's BCR. So it's never added to the
>>>>>> budget or the approved spending limit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Cambridge guided bus started at 54m, got to 116m when approved (some
>>>>>>> of which might have been adding an optimism bias factor), and ended up
>>>>>>> at £152m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cambridge North station went 15/24/44m
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Ely North junction upgrade is going through a similar upwards spiral
>>>>>>> (and they haven't even decided on a plan, yet).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Crossrail's overshoot has been relatively modest: it was
>>>>>>>> expected to cost
>>>>>>>> £15.9bn in 2007, subsequently cut to £14.8bn in 2010, while the
>>>>>>>> final cost
>>>>>>>> is likely to turn out to be £19bn. So that's an overshoot of just under
>>>>>>>> 20%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they've reduced the spec over and over again to control the costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What specs have they reduced?
>>>>>
>>>>> The first was scrapping toilets at all the stations. That won't have
>>>>> been the only spartanising of the project.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2020/0957
>>>
>>> Which shows that none of the stations in the core have the originally
>>> planned toilets.
>>
>> Farringdon does have a toilet that was added. So the only omissions are
>> Bond St, Tottenham Court Rd and Whitechapel.
>
> There was always "last resort" toilet at Farringdon. If that's the one
> they have repurposed, more shame on them.

I don't know if they're referring to the old, long-closed one, or a new
one, built as part of the NR station extension.

But I do agree with you that, just as the stations are all accessible, they
really all ought to have toilets.

>
>>>> What else do you think has been dropped?
>>>
>>> First Google hit: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/sep/27/crossrail-
>>> budget-cuts>
>>
>> Perhaps you should have read it before posting?
>>
>> "The company building the rail line across London said that the scope of
>> the project would not change, meaning that all the stations and the
>> outer-London spurs will still be built."
>>
>> In other words, nothing was cut.
>
> Apart from the new toilets in all those core stations, and who knows
> what else?

You've not been able to come up with anything but missing toilets in three
or four stations, so let's assume nothing else was cut. So, overall,
Crossrail will deliver a higher spec overall than originally planned.

>
>> "Efficiencies would be found by making use of existing train designs,
>> rather than building new carriages from scratch, the company said."
>>
>> All the trains were in fact brand new, built to a new design, unique to
>> Crossrail.
>>
>> "The latest cuts are part of Crossrail's ongoing review of costs on the
>> line, which will run for more than 73 miles from Maidenhead and Heathrow in
>> the west, through new, twin-bore 13-mile tunnels under central London to
>> Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east."
>>
>> Do you think that's a cut? The line was subsequently extended to Reading.
>
> Only by finding separate funding. It's well known that the Crossrail
> project would never have got approval for an initial plan to go as far
> west as Reading, including the OHL costs that far west and the
> consequential rebuilding of Reading station.

It's still an extension, and needed extra station work and more trains.
That will have cost more than a few station toilets.

>
>>>>>> The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich
>>>>>> station and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>>>>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>>>>>> that would have been desirable, but was never approved?
>>>>>
>>>>> They left the provision of that station to the last minute, having to
>>>>> get some special extra funding to fit out the box under the west-side of
>>>>> the site. The original plan was to have two platforms each way, so that
>>>>> for example a northbound train which was stalled there because the route
>>>>> via Finsbury Park was blocked, didn't also block the route towards
>>>>> Luton. Southbound, it would allow better regulation of the service
>>>>> because a slightly late-running train on one of the converging branches
>>>>> could overtake one from the other branch.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, four platforms would certainly be better, but was they ever part of
>>>> the budgeted plan?
>>>
>>> Fitting out the station at all was never in the budget. Which is a shame
>>> because it means the original budget omitted to mention something which
>>> had inevitably to be funded in one form or other.
>>
>> So it wasn't a cut at all? It was something added to the project, just not
>> in the gold-plated form you'd have preferred.
>
> No, as other posters have confirmed, it was a cut from four to two
> platforms.

Yes, but was that a cut from an actual plan, or just an unfulfilled
aspiration? I think it was the latter.

On 2022-02-07 15:27:45 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <stpd33$tna$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:31 on Sun, 6 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stou1q$1qt$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:46:50 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <81kvvg53pd8pvbfa8frm0g8t067i3me8je@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
>>>>> Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>> The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich
>>>>>> station and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>>>>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>>>>>> that would have been desirable, but was never approved?
>>>>>
>>>>> They left the provision of that station to the last minute, having to
>>>>> get some special extra funding to fit out the box under the west-side of
>>>>> the site. The original plan was to have two platforms each way, so that
>>>>> for example a northbound train which was stalled there because the route
>>>>> via Finsbury Park was blocked, didn't also block the route towards
>>>>> Luton. Southbound, it would allow better regulation of the service
>>>>> because a slightly late-running train on one of the converging branches
>>>>> could overtake one from the other branch.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, four platforms would certainly be better, but was they ever part of
>>>> the budgeted plan?
>>>
>>> Fitting out the station at all was never in the budget. Which is a shame
>>> because it means the original budget omitted to mention something which
>>> had inevitably to be funded in one form or other.
>>
>> So it wasn't a cut at all? It was something added to the project, just not
>> in the gold-plated form you'd have preferred.
>
> No, as other posters have confirmed, it was a cut from four to two platforms.

It depends what you mean by "was cut". Looking at the timeline of
events, SPILL was fitted out between 2006 and 2007, opening at the end
of 2007. The actual planning aproval for "the Thameslink Program" was
given in 2006 and funding granted in 2007. From what the internet
suggests, the fitting out of the SPILL station was added to the HS1/St
Pancras station build project rather than conducted as part of the main
"Thameslink Program". Exactly where in that mess of dates and decision
making the choice of the number of platforms was made is hard to
discern, and whether the 4 platform thing was every fromally part of a
specific plan from which it was cut, or simply an ambition or
consideration that never got as far as a formal plan.

Robin

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 17:32:24 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

>On 2022-02-07 15:27:45 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <stpd33$tna$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:03:31 on Sun, 6 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <stou1q$1qt$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:46:50 on Sun, 6 Feb 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <81kvvg53pd8pvbfa8frm0g8t067i3me8je@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
>>>>>> Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>> The spec changes I can think of were additions, such as the Woolwich
>>>>>>> station and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just like (and I know people think I'm imagining it) Thameslink was
>>>>>>>> going to have a 4-platform station at St Pancras, originally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that ever part of the official, budgeted spec, or just something
>>>>>>> that would have been desirable, but was never approved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They left the provision of that station to the last minute, having to
>>>>>> get some special extra funding to fit out the box under the west-side of
>>>>>> the site. The original plan was to have two platforms each way, so that
>>>>>> for example a northbound train which was stalled there because the route
>>>>>> via Finsbury Park was blocked, didn't also block the route towards
>>>>>> Luton. Southbound, it would allow better regulation of the service
>>>>>> because a slightly late-running train on one of the converging branches
>>>>>> could overtake one from the other branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, four platforms would certainly be better, but was they ever part of
>>>>> the budgeted plan?
>>>>
>>>> Fitting out the station at all was never in the budget. Which is a shame
>>>> because it means the original budget omitted to mention something which
>>>> had inevitably to be funded in one form or other.
>>>
>>> So it wasn't a cut at all? It was something added to the project, just not
>>> in the gold-plated form you'd have preferred.
>>
>> No, as other posters have confirmed, it was a cut from four to two platforms.
>
>It depends what you mean by "was cut". Looking at the timeline of
>events, SPILL was fitted out between 2006 and 2007, opening at the end
>of 2007. The actual planning aproval for "the Thameslink Program" was
>given in 2006 and funding granted in 2007. From what the internet
>suggests, the fitting out of the SPILL station was added to the HS1/St
>Pancras station build project rather than conducted as part of the main
>"Thameslink Program". Exactly where in that mess of dates and decision
>making the choice of the number of platforms was made is hard to
>discern, and whether the 4 platform thing was every fromally part of a
>specific plan from which it was cut, or simply an ambition or
>consideration that never got as far as a formal plan.

My memory is that it was the latter. The box was made large enough for four platforms, but the station fitout was later,
funded from a different pot, and at that time, the option for four platforms wasn't taken. It might have been done as
part of the Kings Cross Olympics work.