This is the most sensible proposal for reducing costs on HS2 that I have heard in some time. It has been apparent for many years that this project was mis-named and should have been called "HC2" (or HC1). In other words "High Capacity" because it's never really been about speed (certainly in the first phase) but about improving capacity. I have to say that I was not a full supporter of this project until I understood that capacity and avoiding disruption of current capacity was behind the need for this new line.
Oh dear - is this another impact of global warming that I wasn't aware of? Canada and "broken off" from the USA?
I have to say that reading this article made my heart sink slightly - particularly as it has been written by the NCE.
My previous reaction to hearing that Nelson Ogunshankin of ACE (not mentioned here?) was one of the new Tfl board members was "great, there is an engineer on the board who will bring good relevant knowledge". What had not occurred to me was that he is a black Nigerian that would "tick" some diversity boxes.
Whilst I laud the overall aims of having diverse representation, I suppose I am more concerned that members of the board are there because they know what they are talking about who will make a valuable and relevant contribution. And I accept that, as John Armitt has pointed out, engineers are not the only professionals that have expertise when it comes to infrastructure and running transport networks.
I now have my doubts!
I am curious to know why the NCE chose to illustrate this story with the original Stephenson tubular box section rail bridge as opposed to the existing innovative two-tier steel truss arch bridge, carrying both road and rail traffic, that superseded it. It seems to me that this is a much worthier example of what modern engineering can do.
Heathrow and Gatwick new runway plans make government commission shortlist as Boris Island misses out
Judging by what Howard Davies said in his interview on Radio 4's Today programme this morning (Tuesday), Boris Island has not been "dropped". It has just not been included yet - pending further investigation. So either the Commission's interim report says something different or your report is not quite correct!
It is rather shocking that in a news item of the New Civil Engineer, several of our large engineering consultancies are described as "Architects"! Well below the journalistic standards we should expect....
As a consequence of this article, I rushed to my local water company website to find out what was happening. I then discovered that we were in "Environmental Drought" (rivers low, wildlife engdangered) as opposed to "Water Resource Drought" (shortage of water in public supply). It would be helpful if NCE, as a technical journal, also made this distinction!
Interesting. How does this square with the Prime Minister's stated intent to open up public procurment to more middle-sized firms rather than just a few big ones? Or am I missing something?
Can I just point out that if you quote these savings in the same order as the overall costs, the comparison doesn't make much sense (£29m = £0.029bn v £7.2bn)!
Interesting to see how this might play out in national press.
Would it be
"Olympic bulldozer rips off local landowners" or
"Greedy property owners try to jump on the Olympic gravy train"