GLASGOWOODS Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Hasn't the cost of the aircraft carriers almost doubled as well? How the hell can the costs spiral to the extent they have. Does the Government not know what the ships require to be state of the art and include it in the design brief, because if I remember correctly a huge amount of the money is for extras. They say it's cheaper to build them,than to cancel the contracts. Why is that??? ---------- Post added 20-11-2013 at 23:49 ---------- I'm not sure why they don't just dig an arrow straight tunnel between london-b'ham-manc-sheff-leeds? have it surface near each city, would solve a lot of the problems regarding nimbys, compulsory purchase etc. you could probably set the machines going in a few months so the whole project could be done fairly swiftly if only we didn't just leave our machines under the english channel... Don't forget the millions needed to build tunnels for rare newts,toads etc: So they can cross safely.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 I'm not sure why they don't just dig an arrow straight tunnel between london-b'ham-manc-sheff-leeds? have it surface near each city, would solve a lot of the problems regarding nimbys, compulsory purchase etc. you could probably set the machines going in a few months so the whole project could be done fairly swiftly if only we didn't just leave our machines under the english channel... Think that's a pretty neat idea actually. Stations could be underground as well, fed by loop monorails from towncentres. No blot on the landscape, no more 'leaves on the line,' weather proof etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 They say it's cheaper to build them,than to cancel the contracts. Why is that??? Two main, co-related reasons: (I) Public sector buyers/teams can't negotiate/perform due diligence for toffee ; (II) So they get contractually rolled by private sector sellers. Seen it plenty enough at the coalface with Unis, the NHS and the civvy side of the MoD, so no reason to suspect the MoD/Navy aircraft carrier buyer(s) would be any better at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Think that's a pretty neat idea actually. Stations could be underground as well, fed by loop monorails from towncentres. No blot on the landscape, no more 'leaves on the line,' weather proof etc. I can't begin to imagine how expensive that would be. It's quite cheap to tunnel under a mountain - it's made of stone and rock. It's very very expensive to tunnel under marshland / sandy hills / other non-stable geological features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 I can't begin to imagine how expensive that would be. It's quite cheap to tunnel under a mountain - it's made of stone and rock. It's very very expensive to tunnel under marshland / sandy hills / other non-stable geological features. Maybe, but the Marmaray project mentioned is tunnelling through soft shale in an earthquake zone, and has still brought it in at £2.5 billion. As for cost, someone said the high cost was the need to buy up the land to build on. ---------- Post added 21-11-2013 at 19:46 ---------- Two main, co-related reasons: (I) Public sector buyers/teams can't negotiate/perform due diligence for toffee ; (II) So they get contractually rolled by private sector sellers. Seen it plenty enough at the coalface with Unis, the NHS and the civvy side of the MoD, so no reason to suspect the MoD/Navy aircraft carrier buyer(s) would be any better at it. So basically what you're saying is these very highly paid individuals are incompetent. Why isn't something done about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Maybe, but the Marmaray project mentioned is tunnelling through soft shale in an earthquake zone, and has still brought it in at £2.5 billion. The difficult bit of tunnel has been built as an Immersed Tube. It's a cheap, but quite restricted way of tunnelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 The difficult bit of tunnel has been built as an Immersed Tube. It's a cheap, but quite restricted way of tunnelling. As long as it works. Can we really afford only the best anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 You don't see any issues with building an underwater tunnel between London and Birmingham then? It's nothing to do with gold plating the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Maybe, but the Marmaray project mentioned is tunnelling through soft shale in an earthquake zone, and has still brought it in at £2.5 billion. ...in twice as long as planned, for 8.5 miles and a train speeds of less than 30mph. This is not a project that can be compared with HS2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Things usually end up costing more because the companies hire peeps who somehow claim £50 to replace a "broken" £5 light fitting before charging another £50 to screw in a light-bulb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.