From news.bbc.co.uk:

UK taxpayers may end up paying more than was forecast for the Channel
Tunnel rail link, the government's spending watchdog has warned.

A National Audit Office (NAO) report found passenger revenue forecasts
for the 5bn project - made in 1998 and 2001 - had been "too
optimistic".

As a result taxpayers could be forced to make up the shortfall for the
London to Kent link, the NAO added.

"The economic justification for the project remains marginal," it
said.

The uncertainties remained despite "encouraging developments" linked
to regenerating areas around London's King's Cross, Stratford in east
London and Kent, the NAO said. 

For the complete article, go to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4701801.stm

So, the BBC complain when money isnt spent on the Railways (yesterdays
Stations reports)

The BBC also complain when money IS spent on the Railways (with this)

What to do?

On 20 Jul 2005 20:15:19 -0700, "Minna Daisuki Katamari Damacy"
 wrote:


>So, the BBC complain when money isnt spent on the Railways (yesterdays
>Stations reports)
>
>The BBC also complain when money IS spent on the Railways (with this)
>
>What to do?

Lets all emigrate from this mad land.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 05:20:31 GMT, Martin WY wrote:

> On 20 Jul 2005 20:15:19 -0700, "Minna Daisuki Katamari Damacy"
> 
>>So, the BBC complain when money isnt spent on the Railways (yesterdays
>>Stations reports)
>>
>>The BBC also complain when money IS spent on the Railways (with this)
>>
>>What to do?
> Lets all emigrate from this mad land.


Ah, *that's* the reason for building this line...

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14104763.html
(37 689, 37 668, 37 712 and 37 710 at Warrington Arpley, 21 Apr 2005)

On 20 Jul 2005 20:15:19 -0700, "Minna Daisuki Katamari Damacy"
 wrote:


>What to do?


Proper financial planning and honesty.  They aren't complaining at the
amount being spent; they're complaining about it going over budget.

It happens time after time, and as such is inexcusable.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

The figure I heard was relatively small, about a third of the cost of
the Dome or the same overspend on the MP's plush new office block in
Westminster, not to mention the 0.01% cost of biometric id cards so
what is the big issue.

Kevin

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:14:10 UTC, Tony Polson  wrote:

: UK taxpayers may end up paying more than was forecast for the Channel
: Tunnel rail link, the government's spending watchdog has warned.
: 
Did they go on to say that the Pope had been seen at a mass?

Ian

--

In message 
          "Minna Daisuki Katamari Damacy"  wrote:


> So, the BBC complain when money isnt spent on the Railways (yesterdays
> Stations reports)
> 
> The BBC also complain when money IS spent on the Railways (with this)
> 
> What to do?
> 


The BBC is not complaining.  The BBC is reporting, read the sodding articles.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On 21 Jul 2005 00:40:13 -0700 someone who may be kajr@mwfree.net
wrote this:-


>The figure I heard was relatively small, about a third of the cost of
>the Dome or the same overspend on the MP's plush new office block in
>Westminster, not to mention the 0.01% cost of biometric id cards so
>what is the big issue.


I note that the BBC did not quote a figure from the NAO report,
which I thought would be a vital piece of information for the story
so that one could see how big or small the NAO's claim is in the
overall scheme of things.

I did note the following three paragraphs in the story though.

===================================================================

However, the NAO did acknowledge that Section 1 and 2 of the scheme
had come in on time and to cost. 

Edward Leigh, chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts
Committee called on the Department of Transport to keep a close eye
on the scheme. 

"This project is a sorry tale of something that started off in the
expectation that all the risks would be borne by the private sector
and has ended up today as one where they are all backed financially
by the government," he said.

===================================================================

It sounds like party politicians at it again. People should indeed
keep a close eye on the scheme to avoid another Peter Mandelson's
Dome, Donald Dewar's folly or Margaret Thatcher's Zircon satellite.
However, even the NAO acknowledge the good way the previous (though
easier) section went.

My understanding of the financing is that the private sector were
unable to finance the scheme (Railtrack were involved ISTR) and so
government stepped in.




-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:42df49bd.912442@news.tesco.net...

> On 20 Jul 2005 20:15:19 -0700, "Minna Daisuki Katamari Damacy"
>  wrote:
>
> >What to do?
>
> Proper financial planning and honesty.  They aren't complaining at the
> amount being spent; they're complaining about it going over budget.
>
> It happens time after time, and as such is inexcusable.
>

It hasn't gone over budget. But the revenue to date, and the forecast future
revenues, are below the original budget.

However, apart from linking the uk to continental Europe, the link is
necessary to support government policies for regeneration in the Kent
Thameside part of Thames Gateway, and for growth in Ashford and East Kent
generally.

It's very difficult to show these sorts of benefits on a railway balance
sheet. In the 19th century many railways were promoted by landowners who saw
development benefits, though the railways themselves often made a loss for
their shareholders. It seems that funding Crossrail depends on a major
contribution from landowners/ businesses whjich will benefit, e.g. in the
City of London, but no formula has yet been devised to secure a fair
contribution from them.

Peter

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:19:21 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

> Peter Mandelson's Dome


ITYF it was in fact Michael Heseltine's Dome, if by attaching a name to
it you are intending to ascribe blame. MH organised the project from
1994-97, including committing the UK taxpayer to pick up the tab after
having failed dismally to get it privately financed. NuLab did indeed
agree to keep the thing going, but by the time they were elected there
was only 30 months or so in which to do *something* for the Millennium.
And so, silly though it might have been[1] there doesn't seem to have
been sufficient time to organise a cleverer alternative.

[1] Though, as someone who actually visited it during 2000, I enjoyed my
trip. Even the show, incomprehensible as it was, was fun to watch.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632780.html
(24 081 hauling a track machine at Shrewsbury, 8 Jul 1980)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:32:20 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
 wrote this:-


>ITYF it was in fact Michael Heseltine's Dome,


He certainly started it off. However, Mr Mandelson was the one who
continued it and seems to have wanted to repeat the Festival of
Britain, presumably for family reasons. He was at least as
enthusiastic about it as Mr Hessletine. It was on Mr Mandelson's
watch that the contents were determined and we know that these were
not well thought out to appeal to the mass market.

ISTR he was also in charge when a lot of so-called security claptrap
prevented many people getting into the opening night. One would have
thought that "New" Labour would have been careful to ensure that
mass media people did not have to deal with distressed
(grand)children who were unable to get into the opening night. After
that their revenge was inevitable.

The dome itself was/is an innovative building that could have been
more successful had Mr Mandelson not cocked it up. Not the only
offence to be taken into consideration in his case.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message <6o8o1wjlgpc2$.1mcomcywvqlth.dlg@40tude.net>
          Chris Tolley  wrote:


> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:19:21 +0100, David Hansen wrote:
> > Peter Mandelson's Dome
> 
> ITYF it was in fact Michael Heseltine's Dome, if by attaching a name to
> it you are intending to ascribe blame. MH organised the project from
> 1994-97, including committing the UK taxpayer to pick up the tab after
> having failed dismally to get it privately financed. NuLab did indeed
> agree to keep the thing going, but by the time they were elected there
> was only 30 months or so in which to do *something* for the Millennium.
> And so, silly though it might have been[1] there doesn't seem to have
> been sufficient time to organise a cleverer alternative.
> 


Also, it being a typical tory enterprise, the cancellation charges for the
various contractors would, no doubt, have exceded the cost of abandoning the
exercise. A nice little time bomb they dreamt up for a number of projects
that would continue under Labour.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
news:6o8o1wjlgpc2$.1mcomcywvqlth.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:19:21 +0100, David Hansen wrote:
>> Peter Mandelson's Dome
>
> ITYF it was in fact Michael Heseltine's Dome, if by attaching a name to
> it you are intending to ascribe blame. MH organised the project from
> 1994-97, including committing the UK taxpayer to pick up the tab after
> having failed dismally to get it privately financed. NuLab did indeed
> agree to keep the thing going, but by the time they were elected there
> was only 30 months or so in which to do *something* for the Millennium.
> And so, silly though it might have been[1] there doesn't seem to have
> been sufficient time to organise a cleverer alternative.


My personal view of the dome is that the biggest mistake was
in not keeping it open until they sold it.  It costs a lot just to
keep it sitting there, it can't have cost anymore for it to have
continued as an exhibition.

tim

In message 
          "tim \(moved to sweden\)"  wrote:

[snip]

> My personal view of the dome is that the biggest mistake was
> in not keeping it open until they sold it.  It costs a lot just to
> keep it sitting there, it can't have cost anymore for it to have
> continued as an exhibition.
> 


In addition to maintainence you would have the cost of staffing it, I gather
it never actually covered those costs when it was open.

The trackless railway was quite fun the one time it worked.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"tim (moved to sweden)"  wrote in message
news:3kcp5sFtt1euU1@individual.net...

>
> "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
> news:6o8o1wjlgpc2$.1mcomcywvqlth.dlg@40tude.net...
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:19:21 +0100, David Hansen wrote:
> >> Peter Mandelson's Dome
> >
> > ITYF it was in fact Michael Heseltine's Dome, if by attaching a name to
> > it you are intending to ascribe blame. MH organised the project from
> > 1994-97, including committing the UK taxpayer to pick up the tab after
> > having failed dismally to get it privately financed. NuLab did indeed
> > agree to keep the thing going, but by the time they were elected there
> > was only 30 months or so in which to do *something* for the Millennium.
> > And so, silly though it might have been[1] there doesn't seem to have
> > been sufficient time to organise a cleverer alternative.
>
> My personal view of the dome is that the biggest mistake was
> in not keeping it open until they sold it.  It costs a lot just to
> keep it sitting there, it can't have cost anymore for it to have
> continued as an exhibition.
>

Oh yes it would have. The biggest cockup they made was grossly over
estimating the number of paying customers they would get. Bit like the
Channel Tunnel there really....
Many of the reports I read afterwards stated that NMEC turned down the
Govt's request to keep it running into 2001 because of the sheer amount of
losses it would incur. All the extra handouts NMEC got were because of the
low customer revenue and high running costs.
The best option the Dome had IMHO was to refit in Jan-April and reopen as
more of a theme park in Easter. They would still have had to pay and employ
the staff over that time or fork out more to train new staff. Not really an
option.

Nick

In message , David Hansen 
 writes

>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:32:20 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
> wrote this:-
>

 >>NuLab did indeed agree to keep the thing going, but by the time they 
 >>were elected there was only 30 months or so in which to do *something* 
 >>for the Millennium. And so, silly though it might have been[1] there 
 >>doesn't seem to have been sufficient time to organise a cleverer 
 >>alternative.


>The dome itself was/is an innovative building that could have been
>more successful had Mr Mandelson not cocked it up.


If they'd used the pedant's option and said the new millennium didn't 
begin until 1st January 2001 they would have had more time to organise 
the finance and put together something that worked.


>>ITYF it was in fact Michael Heseltine's Dome,
>
>He certainly started it off. However, Mr Mandelson was the one who
>continued it and seems to have wanted to repeat the Festival of
>Britain, presumably for family reasons. He was at least as
>enthusiastic about it as Mr Hessletine.


If Andrew Rawnsley's book 'Servants of the People' is to be believed, it 
was our friend, the transport supremo, John Prescott that actually 
tipped the balance on giving the Dome the go ahead and Blair just 
ignored the opposition of most of the cabinet:

-----------------------------------------------------
The other, equally abortive Cabinet revolt was against the Millennium 
Dome. Blair was in a state of procrastination for weeks about whether to 
continue with the mammoth plastic marquee in Greenwich inherited from 
the Conservative government. One of the advantages of a presidential 
seal is that it can serve to conceal the fact that the Prime Minister is 
actually in a terrible pother.

Though he was instinctively warm to the idea of making a big statement 
to mark the year 2000 all the information he had to work on suggested to 
Blair that the Dome threatened to be a flop. Peter Mandelson was the 
lonely but influential proselytiser for the Dome.

For the grandson of Herbert Morrison, who had organised the 1951 
Festival of Britain, there was an ancestral impulse for the project. It
would also give Mandelson the opportunity to come out of the dark and 
play the impresario; to add substance to his reputation for shadowiness.

Gordon Brown was as passionately opposed, and not just because the Dome 
was being promoted by Mandelson. Scornful of the entire phenomenon known 
as 'Cool Britannia', the Chancellor envisaged an expensive folly. Should 
it fulfil his expectations of failure, he worried that the Treasury 
would pick up the bill.

With less than a week to go before the deadline for commencement of 
building, Blair had yet to make a decision. Early on the morning of 
Thursday 19 June he asked Mandelson up to his Downing Street flat to 
take another tour around the arguments. As the Prime Minister finished 
dressing, he totted up his anxieties. The costings were dubious; the 
sponsorship was absent; the contents were vague when not non-existent. 
The newspapers - from the Sun to the Financial Times - were hostile.

Downstairs, Blair and Mandelson were joined by Jonathan Powell, Alastair 
Campbell and members of the Policy Unit. Mandelson, as he had done 
before, played to the side of Blair he knew to be attracted by the 
potential glamour and modernity of the Dome. It would be the largest and
most impressive celebration in the world, symbolising the rebirth
of a creative and dynamic Britain under New Labour. But what - the Prime 
Minister kept nagging - if it were a costly failure? They could not be 
sure what the mood of the country might be like in January 2000 People 
might ask: 'Why are they spending all this money on that Dome instead of 
schools and hospitals?'

Mandelson had not succeeded in quelling these anxieties by the time 
Blair was overdue for his weekly pre-Cabinet meeting with John Prescott.

'Bring him in,' said Blair. 'Let's see what Presco says.' Prescott now 
played the doubly unlikely role of friend to a quintessentially New 
Labour project and ally of Peter Mandelson. Though initially a sceptic 
about the Dome, he had been converted to the notion that the revival of 
a disused gas site on the Greenwich peninsula would be a large statement 
of his own beliefs in regeneration. Prescott had an under-appreciated 
liking for the grand projet.

'I don't know what to do about this Dome,' Blair told his deputy.
'Throw in the towel?' replied Prescott.
'You think we should go ahead?' asked Blair, slightly taken aback by his 
deputy's reaction.
Prescott: 'I do. If we can't make this work, what will people say?
They'll say we're not much of a government.'
'OK,' said Blair to the relief of Mandelson. 'That's that, then.'

Not quite it wasn't. Chris Smith, the Culture Secretary and a 
Dome-sceptic, joined them, along with the Dome-phobe Chancellor. Gordon 
Brown wouldn't break openly with Blair in front of the Cabinet, but the 
price of his acquiescence was an absolute guarantee that it cost the 
Treasury nothing. When the Cabinet gathered at ten thirty that morning, 
Blair presented the case for committing to the Dome to his colleagues. 
His own anxieties not entirely conquered, Blair said to Mandelson 
afterwards that he did not think he made a convincing evangelist for the 
Dome.

When he left Cabinet early, for a memorial service at St Margaret's in
Westminster, Prescott chaired the ensuing discussion. This was a new 
experience for everyone around the Cabinet table and, for Prescott, a 
bruising one. Of the senior figures present, only Jack Straw, the Home 
Secretary, was greatly warm to the Dome on the basis that he had fond 
memories of his pride at being British when his parents had taken him to 
the 1951 Festival. Vehemently antagonistic were Frank Dobson and David 
Blunkett who asked why a cash-tight government was spending towards GBP 
1 billion on this giant tent instead of public services. The Dome should 
be 'fired into outer space', said Dobson.

Clare Short, a Birmingham MP, articulated the views of a sizeable 
faction of the Cabinet which did not want the celebrations so centred on 
London. As other hostile voices piled in, Prescott was reduced to 
pleading 'Tony wants it'. He dared not risk taking it to a vote. Had he 
done so, it would certainly have been lost. The Deputy Prime Minister 
concluded this unusually vigorous outbreak of Cabinet debate by telling 
them: 'I will have to talk to Tony.'

When the news was conveyed to Blair that a large majority of his Cabinet 
were fiercely against the Dome, his response was to ignore them. That 
afternoon, Blair, urged on by Mandelson, summoned Prescott and Smith to 
join him on the Greenwich construction site where he announced that work 
would begin with the declaration: 'These plans require a leap of faith.' 
It was a leap that he had dithered over, but once he had made it he 
would throw himself behind the project with Messianic enthusiasm. The
agnostics and doubters were overridden, even though they formed the 
majority of his Cabinet, the media and the public. The Dome was 
commissioned without any further discussion among his ministers who 
believed to complain about it would succeed in doing nothing except 
aggravate the Prime Minister.
-----------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately I suspect many government decisions by both parties are 
made on a similarly well founded basis.
-- 
Goalie of the Century

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:47:01 GMT, Goalie of the Century wrote:


> If they'd used the pedant's option and said the new millennium didn't 
> begin until 1st January 2001 ... 


.... then they'd have revealed themselves as novice pedants. Full
initiates hold 6 April 2001 to be the true date.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12906836.html
(47 575 at London Kings Cross, 4 Jun 1999)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:27:12 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:47:01 GMT, Goalie of the Century wrote:
>
>> If they'd used the pedant's option and said the new millennium didn't 
>> begin until 1st January 2001 ... 
>
>... then they'd have revealed themselves as novice pedants. Full
>initiates hold 6 April 2001 to be the true date.


25th March Shirley ?
Give us back our 11 days !!
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:29:49 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:27:12 GMT, Chris Tolley 
>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:47:01 GMT, Goalie of the Century wrote:
>>
>>> If they'd used the pedant's option and said the new millennium didn't 
>>> begin until 1st January 2001 ... 
>>
>>... then they'd have revealed themselves as novice pedants. Full
>>initiates hold 6 April 2001 to be the true date.
> 
> 25th March Shirley ?
> Give us back our 11 days !!


It's only 25th March if you write "(O.S.)" afterwards ;-)
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632952.html
(43 071 at Cardiff Central, 30 Jun 1999)

In article , Chris Tolley 
 writes

>> If they'd used the pedant's option and said the new millennium didn't
>> begin until 1st January 2001 ...
>
>... then they'd have revealed themselves as novice pedants. Full
>initiates hold 6 April 2001 to be the true date.


Only in England, not in Scotlond [sic].

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: